














ce 


ay 


s10n from 


| 
Si 





ms 
al 


rm 


t ἔ 


ΡΟ ἊΝ 





ut pe 


coalesce 


RI 
J 
δ 


the 


& 


ΜᾺ 
- 
4) 











Ihe copyright law of the United States -- Title 17, United 
States Code -- concerns the making of photocopies or other 
reproductions of copyrighted material... 


Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 
accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 





| J 
would involve violation of the copyri ight law. 





AUTHOR: 


ΝΒ GOODELL, THOMAS 
| DWIGHT 


ΠΠΠΠ,.Ε: 


CHAPTERS ON GREEK 


METRIC 


NEW YORK 


Ι 1901 





" 
ξ 


- 


% 
Ἑ 

ον 

ΓΕ 


ἃ, 
Ἢ Ἐν 


γ 


σ; Scribner’s 


ad et 


ay 


ications) 


4 


“4 Ὁ} 
Ula 


ew York 


1920. 


Ν 
ng’ Room 


a 


wight, 1854- 
Read 


Classics 


Ω͂ 
Ὁ 
ia | 
pod 
cS 
© 

5 

Ee 

ak 

od 
® 
oS 
© 
© 
oO 


163 


Ω7 
δ. 


Bs 


a Α 


γος 


ρου 


ranma 


Ῥωβιῳνανα, 





ὃ 
| 
s 
* 
5 

£ 
| 
a 

nV 














- 
* 
‘ 
Z 
, 
z 
ἵ 
* 
+ 
ἢ 
ξ 
= 
: ee 
δὲ 
Η 
᾿ 
So 
+ 
7 
ie 





ἐξ τῇ 
τ γε 
Py 








: 
ae 
an ἯΙ 
ἢ 
β 
ἢ 
be sa 
. 
: 











































































































eT GE ἀρ tag στ". 





PERRY 


DELAVAN 


f 
i 
ι,, 


EDWARD 

















Pale Bicentennial Publications 


CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 





pale Bicentennial publications 


With the approval of the President and Fellows 


of Yale University, a series of volumes has been 
prepared by a number of the Professors and In- 
structors, to be issued in connection with the 
Bicentennial Anniversary, as a partial indica- 
tion of the character of the studies in which the 
University teachers are engaged. 


This series of volumes is respectfully dedtcated to 


The Graduates of the Unibersity 





CHAPTERS 


9 © «ON... Ἄ 


Ὰ Ἀ .»" « eo? 
Φ Φ ΣΕ e ‘ * £64 6 Φ 6 
® ‘ ω ἃ . a eo ¢ > ὁ . a .ἁ δ 
4 “ »φ4 ιν Φ.6 ᾿ Φ ὁ εὐ Φυ ἃ 
. Φ ’ W/e eevee, ee Ξ a 
Φ 6s ᾿ o 6 ® 8 
ὥφο . ὁ ’ ee" 1: ° e 
8 
. o ν 4.» > - 
. Φ a ee e seve a ῳ - ® 3 
* e ee, m9. é ee. 2 ΕῚ 
᾿ . 6 ’ 9  @ 9 


ΒΥ 


THOMAS DWIGHT GOODELL 
Professor of Greek in Yale University 


Γ 
% 
3; 
᾿ 
: = ! 
᾿ 
5 
ΦῈ 
os 
fe : 
§ 
ον 
a 
ei 
. | 
Da 
_ ae 
& 
ΐ ὁ 
} 
‘ 


eats St 


ποῖος το -- που σου νι meneame 


NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
LONDON: EDWARD ARNOLD 


IQOI 











ΤΕΧΝΩ͂Ν TE MHTPI ΤῊΣ Τ ἘΠΙΣΤΉΜΗΣ ΚΑΛΗ͂Ι 
ΚΕΙΣΘΩ ΤΕΧΝΩΝ AE XOI ΝΌΜΟΙ ΚΑΛΩΝ KAAOI 


Copyright, 1901, 
By YALE UNIVERSITY 


Published, August, 1901 





UNIVERSITY PRESS - JOHN WILSON 
AND SON - CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A. 





CONTENTS 


Scope AND METHOD . 
Ruytumicus OR METRICUs? . 
RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE . 
RuytHM IN GREEK. . 

V. Foot, Ictus, ‘‘ Crcric” ΒῈΕΤ 


VI. Compounp AND Mrxep METERS . 


INDEX 











CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


I 
SCOPE AND METHOD 


IT is a mark of a living and growing civilization, in 
contrast with a stagnant or declining one, that in the 
former men are ever renewing the critical examination 
of the fundamental notions. This is true also of every 
separate art or science. From each new vantage ground 
attained the question is put anew about one principle 
and belief after another, supposed to be firmly estab- 
lished: But after all, is it well-founded, is it true, is it 
fundamental? To some people this is disturbing; they 
fancy that the very framework is dissolving and founda- 
tions disappearing. Yet all the while out of the con- 
fusion of decay, in which the outworn vanishes, there is 
growing up a new and sounder life. The questioning 
attitude toward the old is an essential condition of such 
growth; all of the old that is worth preserving finds its 
place in a newly organized and higher type. 

The science of classical philology is in every branch 
of it undergoing that experience. Greek metric is a 
peculiarly difficult branch, because the forms of verse 
are nothing except as spoken, and the ancients can no 
longer speak their verses to us; there is always an 
unknown quantity in our reconstruction of the series 
of sounds which their lines represent. True, a consider- 
able degree of uncertainty or of known error in details is 

1 





2 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


consistent with substantial truth to the more important 
facts of rhythmical movement in the poetry of a past 
age. Our pronunciation of Shakspere’s lines would 


have sounded barbarous to him; yet we are certain that 
with few exceptions we reproduce his rhythm with sub- 
stantial truth, although we have changed the quality of 
the vowels. Yet where the basis of rhythmical structure 
is so different as in ancient Greek when compared with 
modern English or German, it is always possible that 
the unknown element affects the very essence. Widely 
different views have been held, and are now held, about 
the nature of some common rhythms of Greek verse, 
controversies are rife and lusty. The onlooker may be 
pardoned for believing that all is uncertain and knowl- 
edge unattainable. Yet on the whole the past century 
has seen substantial progress toward the recovery of the 
ancient meters. It is not my purpose to recount the 
history of this progress, or to discuss with anything like 
completeness the opinions now current; but rather to 
offer, if possible, a modest contribution toward farther 
advance. The following chapters will be devoted prim- 
arily to discussion of fundamental principles. But they 
will include also applications of those principles to par- 
ticular forms of verse, in sufficient number to keep the 
discussion as concrete as possible, and at the same time 
leave no doubt as to my notion of the practical bearing 
of the conclusions here defended. 

Such a discussion, to be of any use, must of course 
rest upon adequate acquaintance with what others have 
done; but it need not necessarily be accompanied at 
every step by detailed refutation, or even enumeration, 
of views defended by others, whether at variance or in 
more or less close agreement with those of the author. 
The reader will meet here only the minimum of refer- 


- m ΜῈ ee : a 
vo ah inerig Ἐν fe nah δ ὦ δι «ει One ww ue a ΜᾺ ἐμ 
PERS! aaa uel h πο - a 


pi ta 


Re gee 


ΠΕΡ στ μὴν 


ee 


SCOPE AND METHOD 3 


ence to previous writers on the subject. To avoid mis- 
understanding, therefore, a word of explanation is called 
for. 

It should be said at the outset that my motive for 
such omission of references is not in the least a desire to 
conceal my dependence on predecessors or to detract 
from their merits. Closer study of so thorny a subject 
tends rather to raise one’s estimate of earlier work, in 
some cases even of those with whom one can least 
agree. But in the first place every new presentation 
must stand or fall on its own merits; and those most 
competent to judge it, whose appraisal will ultimately 
determine its place, do not need to be informed either 
where I have learned from others or whose view it is 
that I am endeavoring to replace with a sounder one. 
And again, the subject appears to me peculiarly difficult 
to present with sufficient clearness to avert misunder- 
standing. The constant citation of others’ views, 
whether to controvert them in toto or to explain a par- 
tial failure to agree with them, or even to state that I 
have followed them, would have added much to the bulk 
of these chapters, something to their obscurity, and noth- 
ing to their real value. There are then three classes of 
cases, running together more or less, in which I shall 
not always feel bound to give precise references. First, 
the volumes of Rossbach and Westphal, Christ’s Metrik, 
and the section by Gleditsch in Miiller’s Handbuch are 
assumed to be well known; they must in great part 
furnish the basis for any new-comer. Not the slightest 
originality can be supposed to be claimed for anything 
that is contained in any of these. This broad acknowl- 
edgment of my great indebtedness to them will I hope 
be deemed sufficient. Secondly, my presentation will 
sometimes closely parallel that of the scholars just named 





4 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


or of some one else, but with more or less deviation on 
essential points. While no credit is claimed where such 


repetition occurs, omission of such parts repeated from 


others would leave my page obscure, particularly to one 
who is not already quite at home in this field. Simply 
to make my own conception plain at the points where it 
diverges, it will not infrequently be necessary, then, to go 
over again in detail some topic or portion of a topic that 
another has already clearly elucidated. Comparison will 
generally show, I trust, that the deviations justify the 
repetition. But constant reference to the points of like- 
ness and of divergence, as was just said, would greatly 
lengthen the argument and introduce another and most 
annoying source of obscurity. Naturally the more famil- 
iar the reader is with metrical studies the more of such 
repetition will he find. Thirdly, in some cases of funda- 
mental disagreement, which will at once be recognized 
as such, the polemic tone will on principle be avoided 
as much as possible, even to the omission of names of 
scholars who are deservedly honored in the whole philo- 
logical world. 

Considerable space will be given to quotations from 
our ancient sources. To judge from my own experience, 
nearly all readers will be grateful for this. Even if one 
has the books at hand, one grudges the time required 
for looking out the passages. Care will be taken also 
to cite the original with sufficient fulness. Nothing 
more quickly destroys confidence in a writer’s singleness 
of aim than to discover that the full context materially 
changes the aspect of a citation on which his argument 
depends. It may be only his judgment that is at fault, 
not his sincerity; but the effect on our estimate of his 
reasoning is the same. It is better to waste a little 
space by citing at unnecessary length than to commit 


SCOPE AND METHOD 5 


even unintentionally the mistake of garbling. It is good 
policy as well as a duty to put before the reader every 
facility for testing the argument for himself at every 
step. Similar considerations render some repetition of 
my own argument unavoidable, as the same topic or the 
same statement of an ancient author may require exami- 
nation from more than one side. The whole subject has 
been so obscured by misunderstanding that whoever 
writes upon it at all is bound to do his utmost for per- 
spicuity ; the repetition involved need not lead to dif- 
fuseness. 

Finally let no one imagine from what has preceded 
that my program includes anything so large as revolu- 
tion or re-creation of this branch of philological science. 
To not a few my conclusions will appear antiquated 
rather than specially new. The whole aim of these chap- 
ters will be attained, if by steadier adherence to certain 
sound principles, that have been too little observed, our 
conception of Greek verse-forms is brought a little nearer 
to the reality. It will be my constant endeavor to see 
things as they are, to avoid polemic so far as possible, 
and to keep an open mind. 





I] 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 


In our ancient sources on metric there is frequent 
mention of certain differences of opinion between the 
ῥυθμικοί (rhythmici) or μουσικοί (musici) and the 
μετρικοί (metrici) or γραμματικοί (grammatici). These 
differences are well known and have been often dis- 
cussed ; yet it will be worth while to examine again the 
more important passages referring to them. The exact 
chronological order, even if this could be always made 
out, is of little consequence for our present purpose. 
We may take first a brief and very clear one from the 
scholia to Hephaistion. 

Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἄλλως λαμβάνουσι τοὺς χρόνους οἱ μετ- 
ρικοὶ ἤγουν οἱ γραμματικοὶ, καὶ ἄλλως οἱ ῥυθμικοί. οἱ 


\ 3 ~ \ , 3 / { 
YPAMLMATLKOL EKELVOV μακβον XPovov ET LOTAVTAL TOV ἔχοντα 


7 / ‘ > ᾽ ~ e Ν 
δύο χρόνους, καὶ οὐ καταγίνονται εἰς μεῖζόν τι " οἱ δὲ ῥυθ- 


μικοὶ λέγουσι τόδε εἶναι μακρότερον τοῦδε, φάσκοντες τὴν 
μὲν τῶν συλλαβῶν εἶναι δύο ἡμίσεως χρόνων τὴν δὲ τριῶν 
τὴν δὲ πλειόνων" οἷον τὴν ὡς οἱ γραμματικοὶ λέγουσι δύο 
χρόνων εἶναι, οἱ δὲ ῥυθμικοὶ δύο ἡμίσεως" δύο μὲν τοῦ ὦ 
μακροῦ ἡμίχρονον δὲ τὸ o* πᾶν γὰρ σύμφωνον λέγεται 
ἔχειν ἡμιχρόνιον. (P. 93 Westphal, p. 16 Hoerschel- 
mann. ) 

At much greater length Marius Victorinus (p. 39 f. Καὶ) 
remarks to the same effect on the ‘non parva dissensio 


For convenience this treatise will be cited in the usual way, by 
Keil’s title, in Gram. Lat. VI. 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 7 


‘nter metricos et musicos propter spatia temporuin quae 
syllabis comprehenduntur.’ Especially significant is the 
sentence: ‘ Musici, quitemporum arbitrio syllabas commit- 
tunt, in rhythmicis modulationibus aut lyricis cantioni- 
bus per circuitum longius extentae pronuntiationis tam 
longis longiores quam rursus per correptionem breviores 
brevibus proferunt.’ As examples, however, he gives 
only the isolated words Thersandrus and ἀμφιεσμένος, 
‘n each of which the first syllable is long by position, 
but is made still longer by changing the short vowel to 
an 7. The author sums up by proposing to leave this 
‘scrupulositas’ to the musici and rhythmici; ‘nam quod 
ad nos attinet, notemus plerasque syllabas ratione pares 
esse, spatio autem seu sono impares, ut dicimus omnes 
Germanos longos esse, quamvis non sint omnes elusdem 
staturae: sic dicemus etiam has syllabas in genere esse, 
non in spatio, longarum seu brevium syllabarum.’ 

The earliest in date of these references is in Dionysios 
Hal., as follows: 

‘Oporoyeitar δὴ βραχεῖαν εἶναι συλλαβὴν ἣν ποιεῖ 
φωνῆεν βραχὺ τὸ 0, ᾧ λέγεται ὁδός. ταύτῃ προστεθήτω 
ἕν γράμμα τῶν ἡμιφώνων τὸ ρ καὶ γενέσθω “Ῥόδος " μένει 
μὲν ἔτι βραχεῖα ἡ συλλαβὴ; πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως. ἀλλ᾽ ἕξει 
τινὰ παραλλαγὴν ἀκαρῆ παρὰ τὴν προτέραν. ἔτι προσ- 
τεθήτω ταύτῃ τῶν ἀφώνων γραμμάτων τὸ T, καὶ γενέσθω 
τρόπος" μείζων αὕτη τῶν προτέρων ἔσται συλλαβῶν, καὶ 
ἔτι βραχεῖα μένει. τρίτον γ᾽ ἔτι γράμμα τῇ AUTH συλ- 
λαβῇ προστεθήτω τὸ σ καὶ γενέσθω στρόφος " τρισὶν αὕτη 
προσθήκαις ἀκουσταῖς μακροτέρα γενήσεται τῆς βραχυτά- 
της. μένουσα ἔτι βραχεῖα. οὐκοῦν τέσσαρες αὗται βραχείας 
συλλαβῆς διαφοραὶ, τὴν ἀνάλογον ἔχουσαι αἴσθησιν τῆς 
παραλλαγῆς μέτρον. ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς μακρᾶς. 
ἡ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἡ γινομένη συλλαβὴ. μακρὰ τὴν φύσιν οὖσα, 
τεσσάρων γραμμάτων προσθήκαις παραυξηθεῖσα, τριῶν 





8 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


προταττομένων ἑνὸς δὲ ὑποταττομένων, καθ᾽ ἣν λέγεται 
σπλὴν, μείζων ἂν δήπου λέγοιτο εἶναι τῆς προτέρας ἐκείνης 
τῆς μονογραμμάτου μειουμένη δ᾽ αὖ καθ᾽ ὃν ἕκαστον τῶν 
προστεθέντων γραμμάτων, τὰς ἐπὶ τοὔλαττον παραλλαγὰς 
αἰσθητὰς ἂν ἔχοι. αἰτία δὲ ἥτις ἐστὶ τοῦ μήτε τὰς μακρὰς 
ἐκβαίνειν τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν, μέχρι γραμμάτων ἑπτὰ μηκυ- 
νομένας, μήτε τὰς βραχείας, εἰς ὃν ἀπὸ πολλῶν γραμ- 
μάτων συστελλομένας, ἐκπίπτειν τῆς βραχύτητος, ἀλλὰ 
κἀκείνας ἐν διπλασίῳ λόγῳ θεωρεῖσθαι τῶν βραχειῶν, καὶ 
ταύτας ἐν ἡμίσει τῶν μακρῶν, οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν τῷ παρόντι 
σκοπεῖν. ἀρκεῖ γὰρ, ὅσον εἰς τὴν παροῦσαν ὑπόθεσιν ἥρ- 
μοττεν, εἰρῆσθαι ὅτι διαλλάττει καὶ βραχεῖα συλλαβὴ 
βραχείας καὶ μακρὰ μακρᾶς, καὶ οὔτε τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύνα- 
μιν, οὔτε ἐν λόγοις ψιλοῖς οὐτ᾽ ἐν ποιήμασιν ἢ μέλεσι διὰ 
ῥυθμῶν ἢ μέτρων κατασκευαζομένοις, πᾶσα βραχεῖα καὶ 
πᾶσα μακρά. (De Comp. Verb. 15, p. 178 ff. Schaefer.) 

The same doctrine of the ῥυθμικοί appears in Aris- 
tides Quintilianus. 

Τούτων οὖν οὕτως ἐχόντων δέδεικται τὰ μεγέθη τῶν 
στοιχείων τοῖς διαστήμασιν ἰσάριθμα τοῦ τόνου: τὸ μὲν 
γὰρ ἐλάχιστον αὐτῶν τοῦ μεγίστου τεταρτημόριόν ἐστιν, 
ὡς ἡ δίεσις τοῦ τόνου, τὸ δὲ μέσον ἥμισυ μὲν τοῦ μείζονος, 
διπλάσιον δὲ τοῦ ἐλάσσονος" τῆς μὲν γὰρ μακρᾶς ἡμίσειά 
ἐστι βραχεῖα, τῆς δὲ βραχείας ἁπλοῦν σύμφωνον: δῆλον 
δὲ ἐκ τοῦ τὴν βραχεῖαν ἢ διπλοῦ συμφώνου παρατεθέντος 
ἢ ἑνὸς φωνήεντος γενέσθαι μακράν. (I 21, p. 45 Mb.) 

To sum up, then, we find this difference affirmed 
between the two schools. The metrici considered the 
long syllable as always twice the length of the short; 
whatever variation from this ratio the varying constitu- 
tion of syllables produced was treated as too slight to 
affect the general flow of verse. The rhythmici, on the 
other hand, held that long syllables differed greatly from 
each other in quantity and that short syllables differed 


ee Se ee ot gee 
Sore ΠΟ 


- τινυξεςφοδινῷ οὐδοναξυρο "ες τ τ να enh EE Se a 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 9 


from each other in some degree, apart from variations in 
tempo. The doctrine of ἀλογία or irrationality, whereby 
some syllables were longer or shorter by a small unde- 
fined amount than the complete long, was associated by 
some with this theory, as in a passage of Dionysios Hal. 
which we must examine more fully later. (See p. 169.) 
Some, at least, affirmed also that a single consonant re- 
quired half the time of a short vowel, and that two con- 
sonants or a double consonant required the same time as 
a short vowel; these writers accordingly set up a scale 
of measurement for syllables, simply counting the num- 
ber of time-units required, on this theory, by the con- 
stituent vowels and consonants. 

We may now add another passage from Aristides Q. 

Oi μὲν οὖν συμπλέκοντες TH μετρικῇ θεωρίᾳ τὴν περὶ 
ῥυθμῶν τοιαύτην τινὰ πεποίηνται τὴν τεχνολογίαν" οἱ δὲ 
χωρίζοντες ἑτέρως ποιοῦσι. (1 18, p. 40 Mb.) 

The two schools are here distinctly recognized, along 
with a group who combined in their presentation the 
doctrines of both; but a careful examination of the 
context is necessary before one sees clearly who the 
συμπλέκοντες and the χωρίζοντες are. The passage 
forms part of the section on ῥυθμική, which is intro- 
duced by the words, at the end of chapter 12 (p. 31 
Mb.), μεταβῶμεν δὲ λοιπὸν ἐπὶ τὴν ῥυθμικὴν θεωρίαν. 
In chapter 13 the nature of rhythm is considered ; then 
in order come the topics πρῶτος χρόνος, σύνθετος χρόνος, 
πούς, γένη ῥυθμικά, then the ῥυθμοὶ σύνθετοι, ἀσύνθετοι, 
and μικτοί. In chapters 15 and 16 are taken up the 
δακτυλικὸν γένος, the ἐαμβικόν, the παιωνικόν. In 17 
we are told that several kinds of rhythm arise from the 
mingling of these yévn,—two δοχμιακά, and the so- 
called προσοδιακοέ. Then are described two ἄλογοι 
χορεῖοι, the ἐἰαμβοειδής and the τροχαιοειδής. Also, he 





10 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


adds, there are other ῥυθμοὶ μικτοί, six in number, which 
he names and describes, — the κρητικός (— v —v), the 
δάκτυλος κατ᾽ ἴαμβον (v — ὦ —), the δάκτυλος κατὰ Bax- 
χεῖον τὸν ἀπὸ τροχαίου (--,-ἡ v —), the δάκτυλος κατὰ 
βακχεῖον τὸν ἀπὸ ἰάμβου (v —-—»), the δάκτυλος κατὰ 
χορεῖον τὸν ἰαμβοειδῇ and the δάκτυλος κατὰ χορεῖον τὸν 
τροχαιοειδῆ. Next follows (after a remark on the names 
of the last six feet) the passage quoted above: “Such 
is the system constructed by those who combine rhyth- 
mical principles with their doctrine of metric ; but those 
who separate these proceed otherwise. Namely,” ete. 
The summary which follows is not easy to understand 


in detail, but is clearly “rhythmical,” a more or less 
remote echo of Aristoxenos, 302 Mor. It introduces the 
κενοὶ χρόνοι, or rests, deals with rhythmical ratios, and 


contains no suggestion of the purely “metrical ” doc- 
trine. This agrees with the interpretation just given 
for the passage quoted. Chapters 16 and 17 contain 
much that is “rhythmical” in character (as the irra- 
tional feet), mingled with not a little that is distinctive 
of the μετρικοί. The word order of the Greek gives to 
μετρικῇ the greater prominence. This consideration 1s 
of some consequence to the interpretation ; descending 
stress is the rule in Greek, as the ascending is in English 
and French. Οἱ συμπλέκοντες are primarily metrici, but 
they endeavor to combine more or less of rhythmical 
doctrine with that of the pure metrici; of χωρίζοντες are 
rhythmic. 

This passage of Aristides has been dwelt on at greater 
length because it indicates the general attitude of the 
author. His treatise bears the title περὶ μουσικῆς and 
includes an outline of musical theory; one therefore 
naturally assumes that in his treatment of verse he 
should be counted as μουσικός rather than μετρικός. In 


er ri ¥ inn, ane ge Bin. Mga ae on nse 
I ek ον Δι 


κ᾿ ee 
Pn ing! Ha τ τ᾽ 


ae 


win 
ie Pea a a Ἢ 
jes Saas eg ον 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 11 


fact however he is an eclectic, who drew from various 
sources, including some of the oldest and best; but 
every statement of his on metric must be examined crit- 
ically by itself before it can be accepted as anything 
better than that of a late μετρικός." 

None of the preceding extracts gives a name or en- 
ables us to identify any of the authors alluded to as 
rhythmici. But Aristoxenos is often cited as ὁ μουσι- 
«ds, and since Westphal’s labors no one doubts the prom- 
inence of Aristoxenos as the founder and leader of that 
school, or his fundamental importance in the study of 
Greek rhythmic and metric. And for us he stands 
alone. His followers appear to have added nothing of 
value to his treatment of the subject; their errors can no 
longer be assigned with certainty to specific names. 
Now the special merit of Aristoxenos in the treatment 
of metric is that he clearly saw and clearly set forth the 
relations of rhythm in verse to other forms of rhythm. 
Speech was to him merely one of many ῥυθμιζόμενα. 
The principles of rhythmic, as he conceived it, are the 
same in instrumental music, in the dance, in poetry; 
μετρική, ὀρχηστική, and μουσική in the narrower sense, 
were to him parallel; his ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα kept all 
equally in view, as our fragments of that work clearly 
show. 

However, the precise doctrines attributed in our cita- 
tions to the ῥυθμικοί do not appear in Aristoxenos as 
we have him. The doctrine of ἀλογία, of συλλαβαὶ 
ἄλογοι and πόδες ἄλογοι, he has indeed; but in his lucid 
and rather detailed explanation of the matter there is no 
hint of an application of it to ordinary dactylic hexam- 


1 Cf. Susemihl, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. in d. Al. Zeit, II p. 223 ff., and v. 


Jan on Arist. Q. in Pauly-Wissowa, and T. Reinach in Rev. des Et. gr., 
1899, vol. 12, p. 422. 





12 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


eters or to any variety of anapestic verse. In a later 
chapter we shall return to this topic; for the present 
it is enough to note the absence from our incomplete 
Aristoxenos of that particular kind of ἄλογος μακρὰ 
βραχυτέρα τῆς τελείας which we are told the ῥυθμικοί 
found in some Homeric hexameters and in certain 
anapests. Equally unknown to our Aristoxenos is the 
theory of constant and exact time ratios between vowels 
and consonants. And for the two reasons it is difficult 
to believe that it was accepted by the great ῥυθμικός. 
In the first place, his principle of ἀλογία (which we shall 
see was applied both to verse that was spoken and to 
verse that was sung) was an impossibility, unless he 
recognized a considerable degree of variability in the 
lengths of vowels and consonants. A long vowel plus 
two consonants or a double consonant made, according 
to the ῥυθμικοί in question, a syllable thrice as long as 
a syllable of one short vowel only. Yet it is certain 


that Aristoxenos regarded as irrational, that is, as havin 
o 


something less than twice the length of a single short 
vowel, many such syllables. And secondly, the doctrine 
is so self-contradictory in practice that no one, not even 
the inventor of it, could hold to it in concrete cases of 
connected verse. For example, in the line 


Ἰλιόθεν με φέρων ἄνεμος Κικόνεσσι πέλασσεν, 


in which we are assured the ῥυθμικοί regarded the long 
syllables as irrational, not quite so long as the τελεία 
μακρά, the syllable -pwy would by this theory be three 
(possibly two and a half) times the length of a short 
syllable, and every syllable containing a short vowel and 
one consonant would exceed the proper length of a short 
syllable. Evidently this doctrine would destroy all 
rhythm in poetry as the Greeks wrote it. The notion 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 13 


can have been nothing more than a bit of abstract theory, 
not even supposed to have any practical application in 
verse. The passage from Aristides Q. (1, 21, above, 
p. 8) probably indicates the origin of the notion. 
From the fact that a short vowel makes a long syllable 
when followed either by a double consonant (or two con- 
sonants) or by a single vowel (making a diphthong) 
some one drew what seemed to him the obvious inference, 
namely, that a single consonant demands half the time of 
a short vowel. The analogy of this scale of quantities 
with the ratio existing between the δίεσις or quarter tone, 
the semitone, and the whole tone in the musical scale 
might naturally, to a ῥυθμικός of this type, appear like a 
rather pretty support for the doctrine. But of any seri- 
ous application of the doctrine to any Greek verse there 
could be no question. That the doctrine is still gravely 
cited occasionally, and that Briicke supposed that he 
had demonstrated the truth of it for medern German, 
does not strengthen it in the least. It is easily made 
obvious to the ear, and has been demonstrated repeatedly 
(as will appear later) that consonants and vowels alike 
are very elastic as regards the time of pronunciation. 
We have no reason to doubt that this was true, in some 
degree at least, in ancient Greek. Certainly, if it were 
otherwise, a reasonable — not to say exact — observance 
of time ratios between the syllables in ancient Greek 
song would have been impossible. 

This doctrine, then, probably also the peculiar applica- 
tion of the principle of ἀλογία, though quoted from οἱ 
ῥυθμικοί, had no place in the system of the greatest of 
the ῥυθμικοί, Aristoxenos. Later writers, basing upon 
him, elaborated his theory and added these with other 
excrescences. One principle, however, all the ῥυθμικοί 
retained in common, namely, that long syllables were not 





14 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


all and always twice the length of short syllables. In 
Aristoxenos we can see that this principle stood in 
rational connection with other sound principles, all 
centering in his recognition of the fact that metrie was 
properly a branch of rhythmic, that rhythm in language 
is identical in nature with rhythm in many other forms 
of physical movement, and particularly with rhythm in 
music and the dance. 

On the other hand the metrici, disregarding those re- 
lations of language rhythm, made no distinction between 
long syllables. To them short syllables were all practi- 
cally equal, and a long syllable always practically twice 
as long as a short syllable. If they did not deny entirely 
the existence of any difference between long syllables, 
they considered those differences too slight to make it 
needful to take them into account in describing verse 
forms. 

It is well known that most of the writings on metric 
that have come down to us belong to this school, and 
contain only occasional recognition of the other view. 
That fact is itself noteworthy. True, it may mean noth- 
ing more than that Byzantine and Italian students of the 
classics in the Middle Ages found the metrici more intel- 
ligible and more useful for what they desired, and hence 
neglected the rhythmici. The ancient orchestic had 
perished and no longer interested the medieval student. 
Ancient music had undergone or was undergoing trans- 
formation; and though special treatises on music were 
still current, the rhythm of ancient music was so closely 
connected with that of poetry, that special musical hand- 
books appear to have said little about that side of the 
subject. It was therefore natural that handbooks which 
treated the rhythm of verse without reference to the 
other rhythmical arts should be thought sufficient, and 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 15 


should alone be propagated in the schools. Anyway 
such purely metrical handbooks were the ones in com- 
mon use in both the Byzantine and the Latin schools, 
and have survived in considerable bulk, while of the 
ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα of Aristoxenos only fragments, com- 
paratively small, are extant. 

But there is a farther significance in this survival of 
the metrici. The “metrical” view of verse rhythms 
not only was the prevalent one in later times; it was 
widely prevalent in the classical period also, and was 
older than the “rhythmical.” This has been remarked 
by others, as by Kawezynski (Essai sur lorigine et 
histoire des rythmes, p. 81), by J. Caesar (Grundzige 
der gr. Rhythmik, p. 33), and by Susemihl (Gesch. der 
gr. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit, II, p. 218 ff.). Susemihl 
reminds us that the use of the syllable as a unit of 
measurement by οἱ παλαιοὶ ῥυθμικοί, which usage Aris- 
toxenos vigorously opposed, is itself a distinct indication 
of the “ metrical” standpoint. More recently G. Schultz 
(Hermes, vol. 35, 1900, p. 308 ff.) has shown that the 
name τὸ πεντάμετρον for the ἐλεγεῖον, implying certainly 
something of the same view, was already current in the 
early part of the fourth century. Some other things 
point the same way. 

Aristides Q. at the close of I 19 (p. 48 Mb.) proposes, 
having finished his account of rhythmic, to take up 
briefly the subject of metric; which he proceeds to do. 
The following chapter begins: 

᾿Αρχὴ μὲν οὖν ἡ τῆς μετρικῆς ὁ περὶ στοιχείων λόγος, 
εἶθ᾽ ὁ περὶ συλλαβῶν, εἶθ᾽ ὁ περὶ ποδῶν, εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ὁ περὶ 


+ / a \ - \ , Q Μ ὃ 
τῶν μέτρων, τελευταῖος δὲ ὁ περὶ TOLNMATOS, προς EV evEuv 


τοῦ σκοποῦ τῆς μετρικῆς παρατιθέμενος. 
These topics he then considers in the order mentioned. 
These are the topics and the order familiar to us in all 





16 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


the metrical handbooks that we have in sufficiently com- 
plete form to enable us to judge. Terentianus Maurus 
stops short of the last topic, but treats the others at 
length ; Marius Vict., Bk. I, varies the order only by in- 
serting transitional paragraphs, like those de αγϑὲ et thest 
and de rhythmo (p. 40 ff. Keil), which have a “ rhyth- 
mical” tinge. Hephaistion’s handbook omits the first 
topic, on the letters, and is justified for so doing by 
Longinus in his προλεγόμενα (p. 92 W., p. 4 Hoerschel- 
mann) by the remark: 

Ἔν δὲ τοῖς μετρικοῖς εἰδέναι Set ὅτε πᾶσα βραχεῖα ion 
καὶ πᾶσα μακρὰ ἴση. καθόλου γὰρ αἱ μέν εἰσι δίχρονοι, 
αἱ δὲ μονόχρονοι. ἐντεῦθεν τὸν μὲν δάκτυλον καλοῦμεν 
τετράχρονον, τὸν δὲ πυρρίχιον δίχρονον, οὐ πολυπραγμο- 
νοῦντες τῆς ποιητικῆς λέξεως ἢ συλλαβῆς τὰ στοιχεῖα, 
οὐδὲ ἐν ποσότητι καταμετροῦντες τοὺς χρόνους, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 
δυνάμει τῆς ποσότητος. 

The thought is: Since in metric we regard all long 
syllables as equal and all short syllables as equal, we 
need not trouble ourselves to measure the precise (per- 
haps slightly varying) length nor discuss the individual 
sounds that make up the syllables in poetry. Except 
for this omission, Hephaistion follows the scheme 
precisely. 

We find now that these same topics and this same 
order — at least as regards the first two— go back, as 
a traditional part of works on metric, to a considerably 
earlier date than Aristoxenos. In the Poetics, 20, Aris- 
totle says: Τῆς δὲ λέξεως ἁπάσης τάδ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ μέρη, στοι- 
χεῖον, συλλαβή, σύνδεσμος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα, ἄρθρον, πτῶσις, 
λόγος. He then discusses briefly the στοιχεῖον, which he 
describes as φωνὴ ἀδιαίρετος, and certain classes of στοι- 
eta, namely φωνῆεν, ἡμίφωνον, ἄφωνον, which he defines 
and exemplifies. And these differ, he adds, σχήμασί τε 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS# 17 


τοῦ στόματος Kal τόποις Kal δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι Kal 
μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι, ἔτι δὲ ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ 
μέσῳ περὶ ὧν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐν τοῖς μετρικοῖς προσήκει 
θεωρεῖν. Then follows a single sentence on the syllable, 
with the addition: ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων θεωρῆσαι τὰς διαφο- 
ρὰς τῆς μετρικῆς ἐστιν. 

With this Vahlen compares De Part. Anim. 2, 16. 660 
a 2: 

Ὁ λόγος ὁ Sia τῆς φωνῆς ἐκ TOV γραμμάτων σύγκειται, 
τῆς δὲ γλώττης μὴ τοιαύτης οὔσης μηδὲ τῶν χειλῶν ὑγρῶν 
οὐκ ἂν ἣν φθέγγεσθαι τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν γραμμάτων" τὰ 
μὲν γὰρ τῆς γλώττης εἰσὶ προσβολαί, τὰ δὲ συμβολαὶ τῶν 
χειλῶν. ποίας δὲ ταῦτα καὶ πόσας καὶ τίνας ἔχει διαφοράς, 
δεῖ πυνθάνεσθαι παρὰ τῶν μετρικῶν. 

Further, Plato (Krat. 424 bc) has the following: 

᾿Αλλὰ τίς ἄν εἴη ὁ τρόπος τῆς διαιρέσεως, ὅθεν ἄρχεται 
μιμεῖσθαι ὁ μιμούμενος ; ἄρα οὐκ ἐπείπερ συλλαβαῖς τε 
καὶ γράμμασιν ἡ μίμησις τυγχάνει οὖσα τῆς οὐσίας, ὀρθό- 
τατόν ἐστι διελέσθαι τὰ στοιχεῖα πρῶτον, ὥσπερ οἱ ἐπιχει- 
ροῦντες τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς τῶν στοιχείων πρῶτον τὰς δυνάμεις 
διείλοντο, ἔπειτα τῶν συλλαβῶν καὶ οὕτως ἤδη ἔρχονται 
ἐπὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς σκεψόμενοι, πρότερον δ᾽ ov; ap’ οὖν καὶ 
ἡμᾶς οὕτω δεῖ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ φωνήεντα διελέσθαι, ἔπειτα 
τῶν ἑτέρων κατὰ εἴδη τά τε ἄφωνα καὶ ἄφθογγα ---- οὑτωσὶ 
γάρ που λέγουσιν οἱ δεινοὶ περὶ τούτων ---- καὶ τὰ αὖ φωνή- 
εντα μὲν OV, οὐ μέντοι ye APOoyya; καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν φωνη- 
έντων ὅσα διάφορα εἴδη ἔχει ἀλλήλων. 

From these passages two inferences can be drawn 
without question. First, in the time of Aristotle, and 
even of Plato, a detailed analysis of the sounds and their 
syllabic combinations was already familiar to students. 
The rather minute description of the vowels and conso- 
nants which we find in Dionysios Hal. (De Comp. Verb. 


14), with such a reference to Aristoxenos as leads nat- 
2 





18 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


urally to the supposition that substantially the whole 
chapter is drawn from him, was in the main inherited 
by Aristoxenos from an earlier generation. (Whether 
in the following chapter also, on syllables, Dionysios had 
Aristoxenos in mind and drew from him, we have no 
way of determining.) Secondly, such analysis of sounds 
and syllables was thus early considered a part of μετρική. 
It was regularly found —at least was naturally to be 
looked for —in the μετρικοί, who at this date would be 
generically those who wrote or lectured on meters, and 
would be the same class of people as Plato’s οἱ ἐπίέχει- 
ροῦντες τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς. In that generic sense Aristoxenos 
himself was a μετρικός ; like the rest he had sections on 
the sound-elements or letters and on syllables; probably 
also these were followed by sections on πόδες and on 
μέτρα. What made his work remarkable, and the begin- 
ning of a new school, was not these chapters, in which 
he more closely conformed to tradition, but the doctrines 
of the ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα, which put all these more tra- 
ditional portions in a new light. We may even admit 
that his section on syllables perhaps contained such a 
recognition of the varying quantitative effects of conso- 
nants as was easily misunderstood and was later crystal- 
lized into the fallacious time-scale. 

We cannot doubt, then, that the treatment of verse 
rhythms before Aristoxenos was largely “ metrical,” in 
this sense, that it set out from consideration of sounds 
and syllables, and only partially regarded rhythm in the 
other arts. Also, while we have no way of discover- 
ing what precise degree of elaboration the theory had 
received at any given date, it is clear that before the 


date of Plato’s Kratylos a pretty complete system was 
regularly taught, if not already set forth in published 
treatises. The allusions of Aristophanes in the Clouds 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS!? 19 


(649 ff.) carry back a rather detailed nomenclature, that 
is, a system involving rather minute distinctions, into 
the fifth century. How much earlier a fully developed 
and widely accepted system existed we do not know. 

Of course, throughout this earlier period a great deal 
of poetry was sung. The singer consciously kept the 
time, and the chorus leader beat time, that all might 
keep together. In such singing there could be no real 
confusion as to the duration of syllables. The singers 
therefore cannot have supposed, while singing, that all 

syllables were equal, and that each was twice as 
as a short syllable. The chorus of old men in the 
Agamemnon, rendering the words, 


τὸν φρονεῖν βροτοὺς ὁδώ- 
σαντα, τὸν πάθει μάθος 
θέντα κυρίως ἔχειν, 


must have realized that they gave to the syllable -δω- 
as much time as to the two preceding syllables, a long 
and a short, together. Still we must remember that 
Greek song in general did no violence to the ordinary 
pronunciation of the verse, as regards time; at the ut- 
most the singer merely reduced to greater precision, with 
a minimum of farther development, in the musical sense 
of the word, the rhythm which any untrained speaker 
naturally gave the lines in reciting them. This prin- 
ciple is beyond question for the earlier period, whatever, 
departures from it may have been permitted later. And 
the point to be emphasized is the natural and unforced 
character of this rhythm, to the Greek. That is, no 
more training in music or in pronunciation was requisite 
to enable a Greek boy to read Greek poetry in the cor- 
rect rhythm than is now requisite to enable a boy whose 
native tongue is English or German to read English or 





20 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


German poetry in the correct rhythm. No theory at 
all was needful for that purpose, as no theory is now 
needful for English or German. For these two modern 
languages the theory of metric is as yet little better 
than chaos; but whether one holds a right or a wrong 
theory or none whatever, all readers alike, though they 
may have no ear at all for music,—if only they have 
a vernacular command of the language, and at the same 
time understand the meaning and are not specially defi- 
~ ] 
Hy 


Vv 


. 


in taste, ‘eal D Same verses 10 substantial 


a = 
tne same rhnytnn 


Ni iT di eS 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 21 


needed no theory of it, as our poets need none. It was 
involved in the syllables, and commonly had no other 
notation than the syllables in their ordinary spelling. 
The letters and syllables were therefore the natural 
starting-point for metrical theory, and a Greek poet 
could hardly be expected to feel a need either of going 
back of these or of adding to these any more elaborate 
theory of rhythm. He dealt with long and short sylla- 
bles of varying constitution; the rhythm came of itself 
by the unconscious or half-conscious effect of a rhyth- 
izing impulse which his readers and hearers fully shared 
ἱ 


1 him, so that a more exact notation than the long 
s] 


Precisely so with us, mutatis mutandis. Our poet, 


ort syllables themselves furnished was not called 


or German, deals with accented and unac- 
cented syllables of varying constitution ; the rhythm of 


1 


a given combination results from the unconscious or half- 


© 


working of a rhythmizing impulse which we 


ire fully with the poet, so that in verse we ask for no 


is offered by the words 11 


in 
14 
11} 


Stl 


Ime of 


words 


by the C1TC 
this character 


rds and tune are com- 


the spect h-tune ἰσυνέχης 


re ‘ 


meloay (ὀειαστηματικὴ κίνησις 





' 1 
17 Y Tt? 
εἰ Wi LULA 


.e’s Heiden- 


" pr ‘olong 

one mo;re 

first stanza run 
Sah ein Knab’ ein Réslein stehn, 
Roslein auf der Heiden, 
War so jung und morgenschin, 
Lief er schnell, es nah zu sehn, 
Sah’s mit vielen Freuden. 


In the melody, in Ἷ time, each syllable has an eighth 
l 


note or its equivalent, except that schnell is held a little 

and es correspondingly shortene ἃ (as one would naturally 

read it), and except farther at the end of each line. 
There the words stehn, schén, and sehn receive each a 
quarter note, so that the time which in reading 15 occu- 
pied by the syllable and a pause is filled out in singing 
with a music al tone. Finally at the end of lines two and 
five (which as words and syllables have only the length 


of Sah ein Knab’ ein Réslein, without stehn), a reader 


waits, until the line and pause together equal in 
time the other lines. It is as if the second line were 
Résli mn aut dé r evde -flu ὦ and the reader substituted 


, however, this pause, 


ther lines. is filled out 


ng 

stanza are two forms of 

to make the example all the 

words were set to music by 

‘, Reichardt,! who employed the 

16 and preserved the natural rhythm of the words 

way as Schubert, except in one mere trifle. 

is, he wrote two eighth notes instead of a dotted 

ehth and a sixteenth λει the words schnell es; and here 

the singer might very likely make no difference what- 
ever in the rendering. 

I have ventured to dwell on these details in order to 
make clear the following fact. In cases like this, if poet 
and musical composer had been one and the same, he 
would have needed for composing this and other tunes 
on the same principle, melodies only, without harmony 
or accompaniment of differing rhythm, no system of 
notation for the rhythm, and no detailed theory as to 
the ratios between the various syllables or notes. To 
place over the syllables signs indicating the place which 
each note had in the scale, leaving the time unmarked, 
except as the words in their ordinary spelling indicate 
the reading, would be sufficient for any singer who 
understood the system. If substantially all song were 
of this character, the poet-musician would feel no need 
of a detailed scientific theory so far as that concerns a 
statement of exact ratios between syllables, any more 
than at present the poet feels the need of such a theory 
for writing verse. The supposed modern poet-musician 
might, as the poet now may, either be quite uninterested 


1 In Peters’s Liederschatz. 





rs - x: — — 
aaa ta a — pee ee: πο το ca as 
peamimionedion an a. tae kr ᾿ Dea a-asthd rs res φΦ». ὠὰ 
ΒΝ νου: τοι oar “κῆρ ν- . τ wenn 


ly contained, sufficiently 

the doctrine of sounds and 

and larger units as made up of com- 

syllables,—a doctrine leaving room for a 

considerable amount of uncertainty as to some of the 
exact ratios within the foot. 

Now this was precisely the case with the Greeks. 


Before Aristoxenos students of verse-forms were content 


to take their start from syllables, studying sounds in 
order to explain the constitution of the syllables, treating 
feet as made up of syllables, and larger units as made up 
of feet. It was also clear that the normal feet —all com- 
binations of syllables to which they gave the name πόδες 
— contained, when sung, a part marked and accompanied 
by the down-beat and also a part that was sung while 
the beating hand or foot was returning to the starting- 
point. These were the portions known as thesis and 
arsis, standing to each other in the ratio of 1: 1, 2: 1, or 
8:2. So much it was needful to know in order to beat 
time or to keep the time in singing. Farther, in regular 
dactylic or anapeestic verse, and in the vast majority 
of cases in iambic, trochaic, and paionic verse, it was 
clearly brought out in the process of beating time that 
the long syllable had twice the length of the short. 
That ratio was therefore naturally given as the general 
rule, in all the normal feet as presented in the theory. 
But precisely what ratios resulted when in ῥυθμοποιία 


av 


of rhythm in poetry) an 
ra separate syllable, or when 


in Goethe’s stanza an 


a line was treated as the line Réslein auf der Heiden is 
l 


Schubert’s or Reichardt’s music, 
or when feet of different γένη were mingled in one group, 
—on such points they might easily be somewhat in- 
different, or might hold views that within certain limits 
were not in agreement. In practice, in reading and sing- 
ing, there would still be agreement, though people who 
agreed in practice might differ in their explanation of 
what they did, as is frequently the case with readers of 
modern verse.! Atany rate we get no distinct indication 
of interest in such points until Aristoxenos took them up. 

He was neither poet nor musical composer, but a 
scholar and man of science, the pupil of Aristotle. He 
was also a man of taste, fonder of the great classical 
poets and musicians than of the productions of his con- 
temporaries. The scientific aspects of the arts interested 
him, and he hoped that a better statement of theory 
would be an influence on the side of better taste. He 
treated all rhythms as primarily combinations of time 
ratios, starting from the χρόνος πρῶτος instead of the 
syllable as the unit. This new point of view, once in- 
troduced into the science of metric, was never again 
wholly lost. 

But neither did the new method penetrate and master 
the science completely. And the reasons are not hard 


to understand. To begin with, for practical purposes 


1 Tennyson is quoted by his son, in his Life of the poet, as 
saying that “few educated men really understand the structure of 
blank verse,’ and as remarking on the way in which Englishmen 
“confound accent and quantity.” If nothing else, this illustrates the 
differences of theory referred to. And it is notorious that scholars 
are widely at variance in their description of common English meters, 
which all agree substantially in reading. 





26 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


the older method seemed good enough so long as the 
language still lived, with quantities and intonations sub- 
stantially unchanged, and poetic production, even though 
not of the greatest, still going on. And then the method 
of Aristoxenos had the disadvantage, for popularity, that 
always inheres in the abstract over the concrete. I mean 


this. Syllables, words, verses, are something audible, 
visible, significant ; every one felt he knew pretty well 
what these were. But time is abstract, impalpable, an 
empty something that accompanies the sounds and is 
not easily conceived alongside them. A χρόνων τάξις 
is not easily described or grasped, even by musicians. 
Ancient musical notation gave far less help than ours 
does. But the rhythmic of Aristoxenos required one to 
fix his attention on time, time-intervals, and time-ratios, 
apart from the syllables, notes, or steps in which those 
time-relations were embodied,—to separate from the 
various familiar ῥυθμιζόμενα a system of ῥυθμοί in 
the abstract. We ourselves, trained as we all are in 
geometry and algebra, find that not easy; most students 
of modern verse have absolutely refused to make an 
effort which appears to them so useless and so fallacious. 
Aristoxenos found no little difficulty in making people 
see precisely what he meant by his πρῶτος χρόνος even 
(280, 282, Mb.). These ῥυθμοί, which had no concrete 
existence except in one or another ῥυθμιζόμενον, the 
student was expected first to contemplate in an abstract 
system and then watch them, as it were, reémbodying 
themselves in words, steps, and notes, with more or less 
variation between the theoretical form and the concrete. 
Aristoxenos felt obliged to warn his readers repeatedly 
of this variation, reminding them to distinguish carefully 
ῥυθμός and puvOuorroia.! Not merely is this doctrine of 


1 See the passages below, p. 104 ff. 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 27 


an abstract system, which is varied greatly in practical 
application, difficult for us to grasp and keep clearly 
before us in reading our fragments of Aristoxenos; it is 
evident also that the author of it felt himself to be 
making a considerable demand on the understanding of 
his contemporaries. All things considered, it is no way 
surprising that his method failed of universal, or even 
very general, acceptance. 

All the more natural is it that in the later period 
students of poetry and writers on metric should pretty 
generally approach the subject from the “metrical” 
standpoint, that is, should deal with syllables, feet, and 
meters directly, with little or no reference to abstract 
rhythmic. In so doing they simply adhered to the older 
way of looking at the matter, and to a method that was 
practically sufficient for readers to whom Greek and 
Latin were living tongues, modern still if also ancient. 
I would go a step farther in recognition of the metrici, 
early and late alike. At bottom, if we take their terms 
in their sense, they were right. We gain nothing, and are 
certainly mistaken, if we lightly assume that Hephaistion 
and the rest, together with the earlier writers whom they 
copied or followed, were ignorant of what they wrote 
about. First we must understand them; next, if a 
doctrine still seems clearly quite untenable, we should 
try to trace the error, with the presumption that the 
error will be found intelligible and not unreasonable, 
perhaps even instructive, if we can only discover where 
and how it came in. At the risk of some repetition — 
for the point is a fundamental one — let us make a little 
farther attempt to put ourselves in their place and see 
the matter with their eyes for the moment. 

I hope it has been shown that the syllable was a 
natural starting-point for a systematic exposition of the 





28 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


formal side of versification. In the vast majority of 
cases, in all meters, the long syllable was seen to be 
twice as long as the short syllable. In every foot, that 
is, in every small combination of syllables to which they 
originally gave the name πούς, such that a verse might 
regularly consist of a succession of like feet (as dactyl, 
anapzest, spondee, trochee, iambus, ionic, cretic), that 
ratio always holds. If anything at all was said about 
the matter —and in connection with song the matter 
could not be passed over— that ratio was the one to 
give; it was the normal and ordinary ratio. True, in 
practice the normal feet were sometimes varied by the 
omission of a syllable or two, so that various other ratios 
appeared. But viewed from their starting-point these 
atios, though by no means rare, were rather abnormal ; 
and they did not require to be described in detail for the 
reader or speaker with a vernacular knowledge of the 
language. Absence of the arsis syllable or syllables, 
and the adjustment required — whatever it was — when 
spondees or dactyls or anapests were mixed with tro- 
chees or iambi, caused no practical difficulty to the 
native. For conductor and singer alike we must 
remember that the natural pronunciation of the words, 
familiar to all, constituted the basis; the situation was 
not what it is when a modern conductor leads an orches- 
tra or chorus, rendering music that employs far more 
complicated ratios, all of necessity marked with pre- 
cision in our notation. If the Greek composer in a com- 
plicated lyric rhythm made combinations to which the 


ordinary pronunciation of the words was not a sufficient 
guide, that was his special affair, to be indicated in his 
notes by additional signs and then taught to the singer; 
the general writer on metric did not need to consider it. 
The ear could recognize easily the normal ratio of 2 : 1, 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 29 


and could always distinguish easily the long from the 
short; but it was often not easy, it was in some cases 
impossible, to state exactly the ratio between adjacent 
long and short in the combinations not included in the 
normal feet, although, be it always remembered, there 
was no practical difficulty at all in rendering them, 
because the innate rhythmical sense — the “ unconscious 
automatic mathematician,’ — was the same in all! In 
view of all these considerations it is not surprising, and 
does not imply stupidity or ignorance, that the metrici 
took no account of any other than the common ratio, 
that they applied the term dactyl to any long followed 
by any two shorts, that they called any two adjacent 
longs a spondee, and otherwise applied terms in a way 
that is misleading, unless one bears in mind their point 
of view, and for what manner of people they were writ- 
ing. Especially after the ancient music was partly lost, 
and the ancient dance wholly lost; when the more com- 
plicated measures of the old lyric compositions were not 
often sung, if at all, but were commonly read, and read, 
of course, without that fuller and more perfect rhythmic 
swing which comes of itself in passing from the speak- 
ing voice to the singing voice, but which may sound 
affected in reading; and when, finally, the old pronun- 
ciation was changing and the quantitative system was 
breaking up, — then, I say, it was fairly inevitable that 
writers on versification should adhere pretty closely to 
the “metrical” method of presentation. Of course it 


1 “There is in each competent artist a sort of unconscious auto- 
matic mathematician, who, like the harmonist in music, the colorist 
in painting, resolves in his way the problem of sight or sound which 
the scientist puts into an equation.” (La Farge, Considerations on 
Painting, p. 130.) The rhythmic sense that is in every reader of verse 
is the same kind of a mathematician, though not necessarily in 80 
high a degree of development as in the creative artist. 





30 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


does not follow that they made no mistakes. They were 
compilers, they sometimes included inconsistent doc- 
trines, their rare attempts at originality were not likely 
to be successful; in the latest period the affair is com- 
plicated by the fact that they sometimes had in mind 
more or less the accentual principle, which was gradually 
gaining on the quantitative; their theories as to the 
development of meters from one another are generally 
worthless, because their authors had and could have no 
conception of true historical method in investigating 
such problems. Still it is true that not a few of their 
statements which at first appear ignorant and worthless 
are in fact sensible, and not inconsistent with Aristox- 
enos, when seen through their eyes. ‘To illustrate the 
point before going farther, let us look briefly at the 
elegiac pentameter. 

Hephaistion’s account of this line is as follows: 

Tod δὲ δακτυλικοῦ πενθημιμεροῦς δὶς λαμβανομένου 
γίγνεται τὸ ἐλεγεῖον: ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν δεύτερον αὐτοῦ μέρος 
ἑπτασύλλαβον ἀεὶ μένει, ἐκ δύο δακτύλων καὶ συλλαβῆς, 
τὸ δὲ πρότερον κινουμένους ἔχει τοὺς δύο πόδας, ὥστε ἢ 
δακτύλους αὐτοὺς γίγνεσθαι ἢ σπονδείους, ἢ τὸν μὲν πρό- 
τερον δάκτυλον τὸν δὲ δεύτερον σπονδεῖον: ἢ ἀνάπαλιν 
τὸν μὲν πρότερον σπονδεῖον τὸν δὲ δεύτερον δάκτυλον " 
παρ᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν τὸ μὲν δεύτερον μέρος ἀεὶ διπλασιαζόμενον 
ἐλεγεῖον ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ πρότερον οὐκέτι, ἐὰν μὴ ἐκ δύο δακ- 
τύλων συνεστήκῃ. (P. 52 W.) 

To the same effect Marius Vict. says: 

Compositus est [versus pentametrus] de hexametro ita, 
ut de tertio pede partem orationis complente semipes 
tollatur, itemque ex ultimo pede, quem spondeum esse 
debere in dubium non venit, adaeque postrema syllaba 
retrahatur. (P. 107 Kk.) 

The first example which he gives is the hexameter: 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 31 


Mars pater haec poteris quae nos quoque posse negamus, 


which is changed to a pentameter by omitting nos 
and -us: 


Mars pater, haec poteris quae quoque posse negam. 


The next example in both forms is 
barbarico postes auro spoliisque superbi, 
barbarico postes aur spoliisque super. 


In like manner Aristides Q., enumerating the τομαί 
of the dactylic hexameter, gives first, ἡ μετὰ δύο πόδας 
εἰς συλλαβήν, ἣ Kal διπλασιαζομένη ποιεῖ τὸ ἐλεγεῖον, οὗ 
πέφυκεν ἀρετὴ τὸ τὴν μὲν τῆς προτέρας συζυγίας συλλαβὴν 
περιττὴν ἐξ ἀνάγκης μακρὰν ἔχειν, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν συζυγίαν 
ἀναμφιβόλως ἐξ ἀμφοῖν συγκεῖσθαι δακτύλων. (P. 51, 
Mb.) 

With these descriptions, apparently quite simple and 
clear, agree fully those found in other grammarians. 
The verse is consistently represented as made up of two 
dactylic penthemimeres, or twice two and a half feet, 
with a word ending always at the end of the first two 
and a half. Modern scholars have been unanimous in un- 
derstanding this to mean that, in reading or singing, the 
syllable or half foot at the end of each half of the line 
stood rhythmically for a whole foot; that the time was 
filled out by prolongation or pause or both combined, so 
that the entire line was equal, in actual time, to a 
hexameter. 

It is true that our metrici mention also another view 
Which treated the line as rhythmically a true pentameter, 
of the form 


an C1 a οὐ ie Ba ot 


This view has been lately defended as the only sound 
one. In the article before quoted (Hermes, 85, p. 808 ff.) 





32 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


G. Schultz brings forward in favor of that view, (1) the 
antiquity of the name pentameter, (2) passages in the 
grammarians which call the third foot a spondee and 
the last two feet anapests, (3) the impossibility that 
the ancients, while they still sang elegiac verses, beating 
time, could have erred by an entire half-foot in the 
middle of the line. In farther support of this manner of 
scanning he maintains that ictus in the sense of increased 
stress accompanying the down-beat was not present at all 
in ancient verse. This last question, on the meaning of 
ictus and the presence or absence of stress, had been 
pretty well threshed out, shortly before Schultz’s article 
appeared, by Bennett (Am. Journ. Phil., XTX, 361-383), 
who took substantially Schultz’s view, and on the other 
side by Hendrickson (A. J. P., XX, 198-210. The dis- 
cussion was continued in the same journal, XX, 412-434). 
This part of Schultz’s argument, though important for 
his view, I therefore pass by, and go at once to the heart 
of the question. 

The antiquity of the name pentameter must be con- 
ceded; also that no less an authority than Quintilian 
speaks of the ‘ pentametri medius spondius,’ which seems 
to carry with it the treatment of the last six syllables as 
two anapests. But let us look more closely. We will 
take first the passage on which Schultz especially relies, 
Quintilian LX, 4, 97 f., which reads: 

Non nihil est quod supra dixi multum referre, unone 
verbo sint duo pedes comprehensi an uterque liber. 510 
enim fit forte ‘criminis causa,’ molle ‘ archipiratae,’ mol- 
lius si tribrachys praecedat, ‘ facilitates,’ ‘ temeritates.’ 


est enim quoddam ipsa divisione verborum latens tem- 

pus, ut in pentametri medio spondio, qui nisi alterius 

verbi fine alterius initio constat versum non efficit. 
From this the inference of Schultz is: Durch den 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 33 


Ausdruck ‘latens tempus,’ sowohl wie durch das erste 
Beispiel ‘ criminis causa,’ wird uns bezeugt, dass die Pause 
in der Mitte des Pentameters ebenso verschwand, wie 
die zwischen zwei gewohnlichen Worten in fortlauf- 
ender Rede. 

But this is palpable misinterpretation. The point of 
Quintilian’s comparison, it is true, les evidently in that 
‘latens tempus,’ which exists in ‘criminis causa’ as in 
‘pentametri medio spondio.’ But it does not follow that 
the likeness lay in the fact that in both cases the ‘latens 
tempus’ vanished, was imperceptible. ‘ Latens tempus’ 
can only mean a time-interval not marked by or filled 
with a distinct speech-sound, — that is, a pause, or per- 
haps prolongation of the preceding syllable. It exists 
‘ipsa divisione verborum,’ and in the phrase ‘criminis 
causa, employed by an orator at the close of a sentence, 
as in the middle spondee of the pentameter. If the sen- 
tence stopped here, as it is made to in Schultz’s quota- 
tion, one might perhaps maintain that there is no such 
pause in either place, and that (in spite of the word- 
order) ‘latens tempus’ means no pause at all; in which 
case one could not but wonder why Quintilian used 
the illustration. But the sentence does not stop here. 
Quintilian adds, to make clear what he means by ‘latens 
tempus’ and wherein the likeness lies, the clause above 
given: “which [namely, the ‘medius spondius’] does 
not make the verse unless it consists of the end of 
one word and the beginning of another.” Even if this 
clause were not farther elucidated by similar explana- 
tions in other authors, it would show that Quintilian 
felt in that middle spondee a ‘latens tempus’ produced 
by the very division between the words, —a pause or 
break of some kind, not felt at all between successive 


syllables of the same word, and distinctly longer than 
3 





84 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


that imperceptible one, often non-existent, between two 
successive and closely connected words in continuous 
discourse. And then turning to the preceding context, 
reflecting that Quintilian is speaking of the rhythmical 
close of the sentence, we may recall that precisely at 
the close of a sentence of serious character, where 
rhythm becomes of special importance, any public 
speaker nowadays will often avail himself of the break 
between words, even closely connected words, to make 
the rhythm more pleasing by such a slight prolonga- 
tion or pause as would not be natural between similar 
words in a different situation. Thus Quintilian’s ilus- 
tration becomes intelligible; but it is no longer quot- 
able as evidence that the ‘medius spondius’ of the 
pentameter was identical with the spondee at the end 
of a hexameter. 

And then that last clause must be viewed in the light 
of other accounts of the same phenomenon. In Scholia 
B. to Hephaistion (p. 171 f. W., p. 19f. H.) we find the 
statement that some say the ἐλεγεῖον is really πεντάμετ- 
pov, the third foot being a spondee, the fourth and fifth 
anapests. But, the author adds, “itis better to measure 
it in this way: Since it is in fact divided εἰς δύο πεν- 
θημιμερῆ (and the penthemimeres consists of two feet 
and a syllable) it admits in the first two places dactyl or 
spondee indifferently, then a long syllable ending a word, 
and after this again a second penthemimeres of two 
dactyls and a syllable.” Why, one asks, should this 
more complicated division survive, why particularly 
should it be considered better, even in Byzantine hand- 
books, if that middle spondee was in reading and singing 
always no other than a common spondee? Indeed, why 
should a word always end in the middle of that spondee ? 
The hexameter, nearest relative of the pentameter, has 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 35 


no one such fixed division. Terentianus Maurus also 
(1753-1800) recounts at some length the two different 
measurements, and describes that strange way of scanning 
whereby, in the practice of some, the syllable that ended 
the first half-line was saved out and put with the syllable 
that ended the second half, to make a spondee at the end. 
Those who did this evidently were led to such a queer 
procedure by the feeling that there was something 
unusual about that middle spondee. Marius Vict. also 
(p. 107-110 Καὶ.) goes pretty fully over the same ground 
with Terentianus. 

But a later paragraph of Marius Vict. throws farther 
light on the matter, as follows: 

Hoc quoque notandum in enuntiatione pentametri ele- 
giaci: nam plerumque aurem fallit, ut in illo graeco 
versu, 

ἡμεῖς δ᾽ εἰς Ἕλλης πόντον ἀπεπλέομεν. 


nam si coniunctim ᾿Ελλήσποντον enuntiarimus, effugerit 
aurium sensum, ut nequaquam versus esse credatur. at 
si per hemistichium pronuntiemus, ipsa subdistinctione 
genus metri declarabimus, ita ἡμεῖς δ᾽ εἰς “EXAns, dehinc 
, > / . 
πόντον ἀπεπλέομεν. unde pentametrus duobus pedibus 
et semipede colon terminare debet, ut qui audierit, ante- 
quam percutiat, versum intellegat, velut 


labitur hine Helles, pontus in Oceanum. 
item 
venerunt inter, lunia sancta polo. 

nam si per se dicas ‘inter’ et per se ‘ lunia,’ media sub- 
distinctione interposita, recipiet formam elegiaci. (P. 
112 K.) 

I see no room for doubt about the meaning of this. 
To Marius Vict. and to his authority, if that middle 
spondee was pronounced as an ordinary spondee, ‘con- 





36 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


iunctim,’ there was no pentameter. To illustrate the 
point examples are chosen which have in the middle 
such combinations as one would naturally, unless warned, 
read together, as compound words. But that would 
destroy the meter, ‘ut nequaquam versus esse credatur.’ 
If on the other hand we separate the two hemistichs, 
the whole will then receive the form of the elegiac line. 
This makes Quintilian’s remark plain. We now see 
why a word must end with the first half-line, namely, 
to give distinct warning of the break, to indicate that 
this is not an ordinary spondee, “ that the listener may 
understand the verse even before he beats the time 
through it.” We now see also why the second half-line 
must properly have two dactyls. If either were a 
spondee, it would be less clear, or quite uncertain, 
which was arsis and which thesis. What reason for 
this rule of the second hemistich is conceivable on the 
supposition that there was no such break in the move- 
ment at the middle of the line? One seeks in vain for 
a parallel in any other dactylic verse. 

To this evidence must be added the distinct statement 
of Augustine (De Mus. IV, 14, quoted, and connected 
with Quintilian IX, 4, 98, by Christ, Metrik, p. 911.): 

Duo constituuntur non pleni pedes, unus in capite, 
alter in fine, qualis iste est 


gentiles nostros inter oberrat equos. 


sensisti enim, ut opinor, me post quinque syllabas 
longas moram duorum temporum siluisse, et tantundem 
in fine silentium est. 

How can one ignore and treat as non-existent 
such a mass of well known evidence, accessible in so 
popular a handbook as Christ’s? Schultz and those 


who take his view are certainly bound to offer some 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 37 


explanation of these passages that make against their 
doctrine of the pentameter. 

And now let us look again at the name pentameter 
and the common description of the line, recalling the 
antecedent conception on which the name and descrip- 
tion are based. Aristoxenos and the metrici alike called 
nothing a foot that consisted of less than two syllables. 
Aristoxenos says : 

Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐξ ἑνὸς χρόνου ποὺς οὐκ ἂν εἴη φανερόν, 
ἐπειδήπερ ἕν σημεῖον οὐ ποιεῖ διαίρεσιν χρόνου" ἄνευ γὰρ 
διαιρέσεως χρόνου ποὺς οὐ δοκεῖ γίνεσθαι. (Ῥ. 288 Mor.) 

Whoever will examine these words attentively in their 
context will see that χρόνου in the first clause signifies, 
not χρόνος πρῶτος, but χρόνος ποδικός, ---- [Παῦ is, an 
arsis, thesis, whole foot, or some time-interval that is 
represented by a separate syllable in the fundamental 
normal foot. (See below, p. 184). He means that one 
syllable, however prolonged, cannot make a foot, because 
its time, a longer χρόνος ποδικός, is not audibly divided. 
The ancient conception of the πούς, unlike our concep- 
tion of the measure or bar in music, involved as essen- 
tial an audible division of its time by the transition from 
one syllable or note to another. Herein Aristoxenos 
agreed with the metrici from the earliest to the latest. 
Supposing then that the pentameter as sung had the 
form 


oe Tia Baits wt wt 


how should the early metrician describe it? Obviously, 
as made up of two parts, each consisting of two and a 
half feet. He could say that without in the least mean- 
ing that the half-foot was strictly two-timed. He could 
not say that each half-line was made up of three feet, 
the last consisting of one prolonged syllable. In syllabic 
character that tetraseme was but a half-foot. He might 





98 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


indeed have said that each half-line was made up of two 
feet and a long syllable, the latter equivalent to a foot. 
But it could hardly occur to him that the phrase ex- 
plaining the character of that last syllable was necessary. 
For his readers it was not necessary, and he could not 


foresee our ignorance. In many cases, too, — always 


when at the end of the line a break in sense occurs, and 
often in the middle—that long syllable was not, in 
recitation, so prolonged, but the time was naturally filled 
out by a pause. I do not see then how he could think 
of the line otherwise than as made up of twice two and 
a half feet. And twice two and a half is five. It was 
inevitable that the name “ five-measure ” should become 
current alongside of ἐλεγεῖον. The true character of 
that half-foot, which they saw no need of entering into 
. . * Ὁ ; 
is indicated to us by the care with which the metricians 
emphasize the break between the hemistichs. All insist 
that a word must end there. Every full description that 
we have records, as the ordinary division of the line, 
that into two penthemimeres; even writers who describe 
the division into five entire feet, the last two being 
anapests, call the other division better (Schol. B. tn 
Heph., cited above) or more usual (Diomedes, p. 503 
K.); Marius Vict., by the very terms he employs in 
stating that division (p. 110 K.), shows that to him the 
second hemistich was dactylic and not anapstic, and 
the passage quoted above from him indicates distinctly 
how the line sounded to him. The fact also recorded 
by him (p. 110 K.) that some allowed a short syllable at 
the end of the first hemistich, as being a sufficiently inde- 
pendent κῶλον to admit the syllaba anceps, is inexplica- 
ble if that syllable was really part of an ordinary spon- 
dee. That peculiar method of scanning which put the 
two half-feet into a spondee at the end, and so made 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 39 


certain that one felt the two feet preceding that arti- 
ficial final spondee as dactyls, looks the same way. 

Furthermore, all the testimony which looks the other 
way finds easy explanation. Although elegiacs con- 
tinued to be sung down to Horace’s time or later, they 
were not commonly sung, but recited or read. Now a 
little unprejudiced experimenting will convince any one 
with an ear for rhythm and a good control over his own 
rhythmical performance that it is not difficult, in recit- 
ing or reading — personally I should say it is not diffi- 
cult in singing either — to pass from one method to the 
other, still observing exact time. Even for us this is 
not difficult, in spite of our habit of giving a sledge- 
hammer stress, in English and German, for the ictus. 
We make the middle spondee by giving equal stress to 
both syllables, and so effecting a shift in the rhythm, 
such as we often make unconsciously in prose and in 
common speech. I should think the middle spondee 
would be still less difficult fora Frenchman. For a Greek 
or Roman, who connected with the ictus or down-beat so 
slight a stress, at the utmost, that he was hardly con- 
scious of it, and made little or nothing of it in his the- 
ory, it must have been comparatively easy to make the 
transition from the original movement to that which 
perhaps in the later period, and in reading, became more 
or less current. Except for the great frequency of the 
meter, so that every one was perfectly familiar with the 
type, the elegiac pentameter would come clearly under 
the μέσα μέτρα, or ambiguous meters, of Aristides Q. 
His description is: 

Μέσα δὲ καλεῖται μέτρα ὅτε δύο ποδῶν ἀντιθέτων εἷς 
μεταξὺ πίπτων, οἰκειότητα πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους ἔχων, duc- 
διάκριτον ποιεῖ τὴν βάσιν" οἷον εἰ, ἐκκειμένου μὲν ἑνὸς 
δακτύλου διμέτρου δὲ ἀναπαιστικοῦ, κατὰ μέσον πέσοι 





40 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


σπονδεῖος, ἄδηλον πότερα δύο φήσομεν εἶναι μέτρα, TO μὲν 
δακτυλικὸν τὸ δ᾽ ἀναπαιστικόν, ἄμφω δίμετρα, ἢ τὸ σύμ- 
παν τετράμετρον ἀναπαιστικόν" καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλων δὲ μέτρων 
ταὐτὸν θεωρεῖται. (P. δ7 Mb.) 

The case is familiar enough: the true rhythm of 
—~vy——vy—vv— cannot be determined without its 
setting. The sequence of syllables that make up the 
elegeion is equally ambiguous, — except indeed, as was 
said, that the type is so familiar. 

And yet, as we have seen in the case of Quintilian, 
not every one who spoke of a middle spondee is to be 
assumed to have had in mind this later method of reading. 
For it was a natural result of ignoring differences in 
length between syllables of the same general class, long 
or short, that a metrician might call any two successive 


long syllables a spondee, as he might call any long 
syllable followed by any two shorts a dactyl, any two 
shorts followed by any long an anapzst, and so on. 
Also, since the long was ordinarily and theoretically 
twice the length of a short, the metricus counted them 


so, and might sum up the “times ” of any syllabic series 
on that basis. Unmistakable illustrations of both prac- 
tices are easily found, and in many cases lead to no 
misinterpretation. For example, in the passage before 
translated (p. 34) from Schol. B. to MHephaistion 
(p. 171 f. W.; 19 f. H.) the description of the ἐλεγεῖον 
begins: 

To δὲ ἐλεγεῖον μέτρον τινὲς μὲν πεντάμετρον αὐτό φασιν 
εἶναι, συντιθέντες τὰς μὲν δύο χώρας αὐτοῦ, τὴν μὲν πρώτην 
καὶ τὴν δευτέραν, ἀπὸ δακτύλου καὶ σπονδείου ἀδιαφόρως, 
ἢ ἀμφιμάκρου ἢ παλιμβακχείου, καθαρῶν μέντοι καὶ ἐν 
τάξει δακτύλων κειμένων, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡρωικῷ εἴρηται. 

Here we have the ἀμφίμακρος and παλιμβακχεῖος in- 
cluded among the feet that may occur in the pentameter 


γῶν τος ss Ἔ Ὲ νὼ nr wht < Ξ ἡ ᾿ 
το ee ee, a ee hs, RO SES ae το ΠΟ 
Steed na nN Ra on ee Olle a 
et ri il cach ih Se ee a 


So Bee oy 


eps 
en weer 


aS 


Ae 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 41 


or hexameter; but we do not misunderstand the writer. 
He applies the name amphimacer, for example, to any 
succession of syllables that, taken by themselves, would 
be called respectively long, short, long. Such a “ foot” 
may stand for a dactyl whenever, in that particular com- 
bination, it is a dactyl, the last syllable being shortened 
before an initial vowel; but even in that case a metrician 
might still call it an amphimacer. To like effect Marius 
Vict. : 

Memineris autem saepe Graecos huic metro molossum 
et palimbacchium et creticum loco dactyli sub lege sylla- 
barum communium admiscere. nam et apud nos similis 
versus reperitur in quo primus amphimacrus est, ut 
‘insulae Ionio in magno.’ (P. 72 K.) . 

Again, near the close of his account of the iambic 
trimeter with its numerous permissible substitutions 
(p. 83 K.), Marius Vict. tells us: Et syllabarum quidem 
incrementa sic recipit ut a XII syllabis ad xvm syllabas 
protendatur, temporum autem ita versus habet  incre- 
menta, ut a XVIII temporibus ad XXIII porrigatur. 
Obviously he obtains the larger number of “ times” by 
counting one for every short and two for every long 
syllable anywhere admissible. No one is misled by this. 
If the irrational syllable existed anywhere it existed in 
iambic verse when a long syllable came where the pure 
iambic would have a short syllable; nor do I suppose 
Marius Vict. was unaware that his number twenty-four 
was correct only in a conventional sense. He cannot 
have supposed the line with the full number of substitu- 
tions to be really equal in length to the dactylic hexame- 
ter. So when Dionysios Hal. (De Comp. Verb. 18) 
analyzes clauses from the Periklean funeral oration. 
The first kolon, οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ τῶν ἐνθάδε ἤδη εἰρηκότων, 
he divides into the following feet: first three spondees, 





42 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


then an anapest, then a spondee, then a cretic. The 
following kolon, ἐπαινοῦσι τὸν προσθέντα τῷ νόμῳ Tov 
λόγον τόνδε, he divides into two ὑποβακχεῖοι, ἃ cretic, 
again two ὑποβακχεῖοι, and a final syllable. It is in- 
credible that the rhetor supposed he was describing the 
actual spoken rhythm, in the sense of Aristoxenos; he 
was giving the quantities of the syllables in the conven- 
tional way, and his readers so understood him. Quinti- 
lian was doing the same in speaking of ‘ criminis causa’ 
and illustrating the ‘latens tempus’ between those 
words by the ‘pentametri medius spondius.’ 

But enough has been said, I hope, to show that the 
point of view and method of treatment adopted by the 
metricus were not only older than those of Aristoxenos, 
but also natural and reasonable; that some doctrines of 
the metrici, when interpreted in the sense intended, 
though seemingly at variance with Aristoxenos, are in 
fact in harmony with his doctrines, and true. 

There is farther an interesting series of passages de- 
fining or describing ῥυθμός, most of them carefully 
differentiating this from μέτρον. The most suggestive 
of these are subjoined, with some comments. 

(1) Ρυθμὸς δὲ τί ἐστι : ---- (ἃ) χρόνου καταμέτρησις μετὰ 
κινήσεως γινομένη ποιᾶς τινος. (b) κατὰ δὲ Φαῖδρον ῥυθ- 
μός ἐστι συλλαβῶν κειμένων πως πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἔμμετρος 
θέσις. (0) κατὰ δὲ ᾿Αριστόξενον χρόνος διῃρημένος ἐφ᾽ 
ἑκάστῳ τῶν ῥυθμίζεσθαι δυναμένων. (4) κατὰ δὲ Νικό- 
μαχον χρόνων εὔτακτος κίνησις. (6) κατὰ δὲ Λεόφαντον 
χρόνων σύνθεσις κατὰ ἀναλογίαν τε καὶ συμμετρίαν πρὸς 
ἑαυτοὺς θεωρουμένων. (f) κατὰ δὲ Δίδυμον φωνῆς ποιᾶς 


σχηματισμός. — ἡ μὲν οὖν φωνὴ ποίως σχηματισθεῖσα 


ῥυθμὸν ἀποτελεῖ, γίνεται δὲ οὗτος ἢ περὶ λέξιν ἢ περὶ 
μέλος ἢ περὶ σωματικὴν κίνησιν. (Baccheios 93, p. 313 J.) 
It is plain that definitions (a), (c), (d), (6), and the 





RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 43 


last clause (γίνεται δὲ, etc.), regard rhythm as primarily 
a matter of “ times”; while definition (f), and still more 
clearly (b), start from the syllable, that is, are “ metri- 
cal” in character. Yet it is equally plain that these 
definitions are not inconsistent with one another. They 
differ in extension, and in degree of precision and lucid- 
ity; but so far as it goes (b) is entirely sound. As v. 
Jan points out in his edition (p. 289 f.) the entire pass- 
age 89-101 shows a similar mingling, and reminds one of 
the συμπλέκοντες Tn μετρικῇ θεωρίᾳ τὴν περὶ ῥυθμῶν 
τεχνολογίαν. Again, among definitions of ἁ πούς dis- 
cussed by Hoerschelmann (Ein gr. Lehrbuch d. Metrik, 
p. 25 ff.) distinctively “metrical” in character, such an 
addition as the clause ἐξ ὧν [or ἐν ais] γνωρίζομεν τὸ τοῦ 
μέτρου εἶδός τε καὶ μέγεθος is identical in substance, as 
far as it goes, with the definition of Aristoxenos, 6 
σημαινόμεθα τὸν ῥυθμὸν Kal γνώριμον ποιοῦμεν TH αἰσθή- 
get. So in the various lists of feet, those who arrange 
these according to the number of χρόνοι, like Dionysios 
Hal. and Hephaistion, in so far approach the “ rhythmi- 
cal” view. 

(2) Ὃ δὲ αὐτὸς ῥυθμὸς οὔτε περὶ γραμμάτων οὔτε περὶ 
συλλαβῶν ποιεῖται τὸν λόγον, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν χρόνων, τὰ 
[τοὺς P.] μὲν ἐκτείνειν κελεύων τὰ [τοὺς P.] δὲ συνάγειν 
τοὺς δὲ ἔσους ποιεῖν ἀλλήλοις. καὶ τοῦτο ποιεῖ μενόντων 
τῶν συλλαβῶν καὶ τῶν γραμμάτων. (Excerpta Neapol. 21, 
Ρ. 418 J.) 

When read in connection with the remarks above 
cited (p. 16 f.) from Aristotle and Plato, this excerpt is 
seen to contain a polemic recognition of the metrici. 
Especially noteworthy is the last sentence. It accords 
pertectly with Aristoxenos in teaching that, while syl- 
lables and letters remain, with no diminution of essential 
characteristics, the times or quantities of the same syl- 





+4 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


lables may vary. Therefore we are forced, if we would 
deal adequately with rhythm in language, to go behind 
the syllable and its parts, keep our attention on the 
time-intervals, and consistently treat these, rather than 
syllables, as the real elements of rhythm. 

(3) Διαφέρει ῥυθμοῦ τὸ μέτρον ἡ TO μὲν μέτρον TeTn- 
γότας ἔχει τοὺς χρόνους, μακρόν τε καὶ βραχὺν καὶ τὸν 
μεταξὺ τούτων τὸν κοινὸν καλούμενον, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς πάντως 
μακρός ἐστι καὶ βραχύς, ὁ δὲ ῥυθμὸς ὡς βούλεται ἕλκει 
τοὺς χρόνους " πολλάκις γοῦν καὶ τὸν βραχὺν χρόνον ποιεῖ 
μακρόν. (Longinus on Heph., p. 84 W; p. 2 H.) 

With this must be considered the two following. 

(4) Rhythmus est pedum temporumque iunctura velox 
divisa in arsin et thesin vel tempus quo syllabas meti- 
mur... differt autem rhythmus a metro, quod metrum 
in verbis, rhythmus in modulatione ac motu corporis 
sit; et quod metrum pedum sit quaedam compositio, 
rhythmus autem temporum inter se ordo quidam; et 
quod metrum certo numero syllabarum vel pedum fini- 
tum sit, rhythmus autem numquam numero cireumscerib- 
atur. nam ut volet protrahit tempora, ita ut breve 
tempus plerumque longum efficiat, longum contrahat. 
(Marius Vict., p. 41 ἢ. Ix.) 

(5) Inter metrum et rhythmum hoc interest, quod 
metrum circa divisionem pedum versatur, rhythmus 
circa sonum, quod etiam metrum sine plasmate prolatum 
proprietatem suam servat, rhythmus autem numquam 
sine plasmate valebit. (Atilius Fortun., p. 282 Kk.) 

That these three passages are closely related is clear, 
as also that all alike imply a true notion of the nature 
of rhythm. The words ‘temporum inter se ordo quidam’ 
are a perfect translation of Aristoxenos’s definition 
χρόνων τάξις ἀφωρισμένη. But in them all appears also 
a conception of ‘metrum’ that calls for closer attention. 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 45 


The conception includes these factors. First, ‘metrum’ 
is concerned with words and syllables, not with other 
ῥυθμιζόμενα. So far we are on old ground. But sec- 
ondly, the times employed are fixed, long or short, as 
over against ‘rhythmus,’ which varies the ratios greatly. 
Thirdly, a series of words that falls under the concep- 
tion of ‘metrum’ (7%. e., a concrete ‘metrum ’) exhibits its 
proper character as ‘metrum’ when pronounced in a sim- 
ple manner, with no modulation of the syllables in order 
to make the time intervals more perfectly rhythmical ; 
in contrast herewith, ‘rhythmus’ will never be quite right 
without such modulation or moulding (πλάσμα) of the 
times. The last mentioned factor in the conception of 
‘metrum’ is clearly stated only in the sentence from Atil- 
ius; but that sentence furnishes the most natural ex- 
planation of the phrases πεπηγότας ἔχει τοὺς χρόνους 
and ‘certo numero syllabarum vel pedum finitum,’ over 
against the phrases ὡς βούλεται ἕλκει τοὺς χρόνους and 
‘ut volet protrahit tempora,’ etc. That interpretation is 
confirmed by the following. 

(6) Siqua autem apud poetas lyricos aut tragicos 
quispiam reppererit, in quibus certa pedum conlocatione 
neglecta sola temporum ratio considerata sit, meminerit 
ea, sicut apud doctissimos quosque scriptum invenimus, 
non metra sed rhythmos appellari oportere. scribimus 
igitur ita de metris, ut ab his rhythmos procul remove- 
amus, atque in his omnino nullum sit, in quo non pedum 
defixa ratio cum dulcedine adsociata atque permixta sit. 
(Mallus Theodorus, p. 586 K.) 

Taken together, then, the four preceding passages tell 
us this. Some of the metrici— should we not say all, 
so far as we have them? — recognized that the syllabic 
principle, with its fixed ratio of 2: 1, was not adequate 
to explain the rhythm of many passages in the lyric and 





46 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


tragic poets; they accordingly got around the difficulty 
by making a division between meters. Those in which 
they perceived the rhythm to be too complicated for the 
“metrical” theory to explain passably were set off as 
ῥυθμοί, and left to be elucidated by the ῥυθμικοί and 
μουσικοί: those which the “ metrical” theory seemed to 
describe adequately —in which, namely, the ratio 2:1 
was not in too crying contradiction to the facts — they 
retained as the proper sphere of metric.) The latter — 
the metra in this special sense —included all of the 
recitative and march type and the simpler melic forms, 

all in which a single line or a brief strophe was many 
times repeated with slight variation or none; this covers 
all the poems of Horace and Catullus, for example. The 
ῥυθμοί on the other hand, such as the more elaborate 
and varied strophes of choral lyric or of the monodic 
κόμμοι and μέλη ἀπὸ σκηνῆς of tragedy, they did not 
meddle with. Accordingly we find that our metrici in 
fact hardly touch upon those more complicated melic 
forms. In precisely that portion of ancient poetry 
where we find the greatest difficulty in understanding 
the versification the metrici give us no help. As regards 
the conception of Marius Vict., the above passage is 
supplemented by others. In the section on feet (p. 43 
f. K.) he defines the foot, in full accord with Aristox- 
enos, as ‘certus modus syllabarum quo cognoscimus to- 


tius metri speciem, compositus ex sublatione et posi- 
tione.’ Then, as the final item in his elucidation of the 
definition, he adds: 

(7) Inter pedem autem et rhythmum hoc interest, 
quod pes sine rhythmo esse non potest, rhythmus autem 
sine pede decurrit. non enim gradiuntur mele pedum 
mensionibus, sed rhythmis fiunt. (P. 44 K.) 


1 Cf. Christ, Metrik, pp. 88-92. 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 47 


As above, two senses of ‘rhythmus’ must be distin- 
guished, namely, the abstract sense, rhythm, and the 
concrete sense, a combination of syllables or words con- 
stituting a “rhythmus.” Thus in English paraphrase: 
“ Between foot and ‘rhythmus’ there is this difference, 
that a foot cannot exist without rhythm, but a ‘rhyth- 
mus’ moves rhythmically without being divisible into 
feet.” If one starts with the universal ancient idea of 
the foot, then μέλη in which a συλλαβὴ τρίσημος or 
τετράσημος often takes the place of the complete foot, 
not merely the end of a kolon but within it, obviously 
do not ‘advance by the measurements of feet,’ and the 
movement cannot be adequately described by naming 
the foot, or dividing it into feet. The rhythm of such 
a melic strophe is made up of “rhythmi.” And in 
the first sentence of the passage (4) above our author is 
careful to say that “rhythmus ” is a combination of feet 
and times, divided into arsis and thesis or time [the 
χρονος πρῶτος ] by which we measure syllables. 
Marius Vict. does not attempt to describe such μέλη, 
made up of “rhythmi;” he does not include them in 
his special field, but leaves them to the rhythmici and 
the musicians. 

The section of Marius Vict. de pedibus (pp. 48-50 K.) 
is followed by the section de metris. The author is 
here considering in general terms the ‘metra’ that consti- 
tute his own field, leaving out of view the freer varieties of 
lyric. He begins by describing ‘metrum’ as a ‘compositio 
pedum ad certum finem deducta seu dictionum quantitas 
et qualitas pedibus terminata vel rhythmus modis finitus.’ 
Obviously ‘rhythmus’ here is not a piece of freer lyric, 
but simply a rhythmical composition in language, within 
the limits of the general class which he is here consider- 
ing; he describes ‘metrum’ in three ways, after the 


Bo i ὡΣ τὶ gh ἘΣ ic, ET 


Yi Meg τὸς 





48 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


fashion common to this author, all three being substan- 
tially equivalent to one another. He proceeds : Prima 
autem metra sunt syllaba brevis et syllaba longa; ex his 
enim metimur ipsos pedes ac rursus ex pedibus metra et 
deinceps de metris carmina. Here ‘ metra’ is employed in 
two senses, first in the general sense of measures, then 
in the technical sense of definite pieces of metrical 
(not freer lyric) compositions. Next are named four 
classes of ‘metra,’ namely ‘ epica, melica, comica, tragica,’ 
which he goes on to describe. The description of the 
second class is interesting. It is, in full: 

(8) Melicum autem sive lyricum, quod ad modula- 
tionem lyrae citharaeve componitur, sicut fecit Alcaeus 
et Sappho, quos plurimum est secutus Horatius.  car- 
men autem lyricum, quamyis metro subsistat, potest 
tamen videri extra legem metri esse, quia libero scriben- 
tis arbitrio per rhythmos exigitur. (P. 50 K.) 


Are we to suppose here an utter confusion of thought 
and term: ology? That is surely incredible. But in 


that case t. > last sentence contains a pretty clear recog- 
nition of the fact that such lyric meters as those of the 
poets named occupy a peculiar position in relation to 
those two artificial classes, of ‘metra’ and ‘ rhythmi.’ 
They are μέλη, they contain such mingling of prolonged 
syllables with feet of different γένη that the “ metrical ”’ 
ratio of 2:1 fails to account for the rhythm. On the 
other hand, they employ a comparatively small number 
of often repeated lines or brief stanzas, of fixed types; 
these can be accurately described and easily learned ; 
the poet does not, like Pindar, or like the Attic drama- 
tists in their lyric parts, disconcert the barbarian reader 
by inventing new forms and combinations for every new 
poem. This comparative fixity of type enables the 
metrician to include them under the ‘metra’; yet our 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 49 


author perceives that they are ‘rhythmi’ as well. A 
hard and fast line between the classes cannot be drawn. 

There is also in Quintilian (IX, 4, 45-51) an interesting 
discussion of ‘numeri’ (here, as he explains, equivalent 
to ‘rhythmi”) and ‘metra,’ which traverses much the same 
ground ; the difference in phraseology offers a good test 
of our interpretation. I select a few clauses only. 
‘Although both consist of feet, yet they differ in several 
ways. Nam primum numeri spatio temporum constant, 
metra etiam ordine, ideoque alterum esse quantitatis 
videtur, alterum qualitatis.’ That is,in ἃ ‘metrum ’ the 
sequence of feet, syllables, and times is fixed; the poet 
was not free to vary these, except within very narrow 
limits; while in writing ‘numeri’ great freedom was 
allowed, if the due ‘spatium temporis’ was observed. 
A little later he proceeds : 

(9) Sunt et illa discrimina, ... quod metrum in verbis 
modo, rhythmos etiam in corporis motu est. inania quo- 
que tempora rhythmi facilius accipient, quamquam haec 
et in metris accidunt. maior tamen illic licentia est, ubi 
tempora etiam [animo] metiuntur et pedum et digito- 
rum ictu, et intervalla signant quibusdam notis atque 
aestimant, quot breves illud spatium habeat; inde τετρά- 
σημοι, πεντάσημοι, deinceps longiores sunt percussiones, 
nam σημεῖον tempus est unum. 

Especially noteworthy is the plain statement that 
rests (‘inania tempora,’ κενοὶ χρόνοι) occur in ‘metra,’ 
though naturally more freely in ‘rhythmi,’ where the 
performer or leadér beats time, and where the composer 
adds, if necessary, signs that indicate the longer time- 
intervals. 

Still another remark of Marius Vict. farcher sets 
forth his view of ‘rhythmi’ or μέλη. 

(10) Hine procul dubio intelligi datur prosam numeris 

4 


1 alee i a! a atl ρις 





50 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


subsistere. nam et Aristoteles, homo sublimis ingenii, 
praecipit numeros esse in oratione oportere, ita tamen ne 
versus incurrant, qui saepe imprudentibus subrepunt, 
quod et Cicero in Oratore suo tangit, ipsa quoque lyrica 
poemata sublata modulatione vocis non ultra solutam 
orationem procurrunt. (P. 113 K.) 

This passage immediately follows that quoted above 
(p. 35) on the pentameter, to which ‘hine’ refers back. 
Kach paragraph throws light on the other; and if the 
reader desires to see them in their true relation he will 
do well to turn to them in Keil’s pages. I take this 
meaning to be clearly involved in them. In the illus- 
trative pentameters which Marius Vict. has just given 
a certain slight degree of ‘modulatio’ or πλάσμα is 
requisite in order to produce the verse; without that they 
are prose, containing ‘numeri’ indeed, but not making, 


to his ear, a true ‘ versus.’ This enables us to see beyond 


question, he says, how prose should contain (as Aristotle 
and Cicero direct) ‘numeri’ but not ‘versus.’ Again, even 
lyric poems (that is μέλη). like the pentameters quoted, 
if you take away that still higher degree of ‘modulatio 
vocis’ (that is πλάσμα. the more exact observance of 
rhythm that goes naturally with the singing voice), 
become in their movement nowise different from rhyth- 
mical prose. In other terms we might say: the συλλαβαὶ 
τρίσημοι and τετράσημοι of the full musical rendering 
are in such “unmodulated” rendering not fully pre- 
served; pauses and shifts of rhythm take their place in 
a degree sufficient (the degree need not be great) to 
obscure the full musical rhythm, and change it to the 
less consistent rhythm, more shifting and less easily 
noted in exact ratios, that pleases in good prose. For 
the sake of the little additional light on this matter of 
πλάσμα. the following is added from Aristides Q.: 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 51 


(11) Ῥυθμὸς δὲ [νοεῖται] καθ᾽ αὑτὸν μὲν ἐπὶ ψιλῆς op- 
χήσεως, μετὰ δὲ μέλους ἐν κώλοις, μετὰ δὲ λέξεως μόνης 
ἐπὶ τῶν ποιημάτων μετὰ πεπλασμένης ὑποκρίσεως, οἷον 
τῶν Σωτάδου καί τινων τοιούτων. (P. 32 Mb.) 

That is (taking into account the context): “ Rhythm 
without tune or words is perceived in unaccompanied 
dancing; combined with tune it is perceived in passages 
of instrumental music; combined with speech alone, 
in poems declaimed with a ‘moulded’ delivery, as those 
of Sotades and the like.” The degree of πλάσμα 
here intended need not be very great. Presumably it 
would be about what we are all accustomed to in public 
recitation of poetry; such a degree as Probus had in 
mind in saying: Item Aeneida quoniam plasmate legi 
volebat, ait “arma virumque cano” (cited by Keil on 
Atilius Fort., p. 282 K.). That is, we are not to suppose 
that πλάσμα implied great artificiality or extraordinary 
prolongations and contractions. The phenomenon thus 
named is one perfectly familiar to us in modern speech 
and verse, as we shall have occasion to note in the next 
chapter. 

One more passage is worth citing here, though it deals 
with the contrast, not between ‘ metrum’ and ‘ rhythmus,’ 
but between prose and ‘rhythmus.’ 

(12) Ἣ μὲν γὰρ πεζὴ λέξις οὐδενὸς οὐτ᾽ ὀνόματος οὔτε 
ῥήματος βιάζεται τοὺς χρόνους οὐδὲ μετατίθησιν, ἀλλ᾽ οἵας 
παρείληφε τῇ φύσει τὰς συλλαβὰς τάς τε μακρὰς καὶ τὰς 
βραχείας, τοιαύτας φυλάττει. ἡ δὲ ῥυθμικὴ καὶ μουσικὴ 
μεταβάλλουσιν αὐτὰς μειοῦσαι καὶ αὔξουσαι, ὥστε πολ- 
λάκις εἰς τὰ ἐναντία μεταχωρεῖν. οὐ γὰρ ταῖς συλλαβαῖς 
ἀπευθύνουσι τοὺς χρόνους ἀλλὰ τοῖς χρόνοις τὰς συλλαβάς. 
(De Comp. Verb. 11, p. 184 Sch.) 

The first sentence of this touches a matter to be con- 
sidered later; its value at present lies in the force given 





CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


by contrast to the remainder. And in that, the two 
remaining sentences, we find ample recognition of the 
fact that in Greek lyric meters, so far as they come 
under what we have seen called μέλη and ῥυθμοί or 
‘rhythmi,’ long and short syllables alike were more 
or less variable. In some way —just how, we will not 
yet consider—the reader knew in what rhythmical 
scheme or pattern the poet intended the verses to be 
rendered. To reproduce the rhythmical pattern which 
the poet had in mind, the singer, if not also the reader, 
made some long syllables longer and others shorter than 
two χρόνοι πρῶτοι, and made some short syllables longer 
than one χρόνος πρῶτος. It seemed to Dionysios in 
those cases that one did not so much regulate the times 
by the syllables, but rather regulated the syllables by 
the times. It is highly probable that Dionysios here 
draws from some earlier writer; but whether he does or 
not, we cannot suppose that in the time of Augustus 
such statements, by a man like Dionysios, are in any 
degree suggested by a breaking down of the sense for 
the classical quantities. On the other hand, the follow- 
ing contains an unmistakable reference to the medieval 
and modern principle. 

(13) Metrum poeticum quid est? versificandi dis- 
ciplina certa syllabarum ac temporum ratione in pedibus 
observata. metrum unde dictum? quod veluti men- 
suram quandam praestituat, a qua siquid plus minusve 
erit, pes sive versus minime constabit. metro quid vide- 
tur esse consimile? rhythmus. rhythmus quid est? 
verborum modulata compositio non metrica ratione, sed 
numerosa scansione ad iudicium aurium examinata, ut 
puta veluti sunt cantica poetarum vulgarium. rhyth- 
mus ergo in metro non est? potest esse. quid ergo 
distat a metro? quod rhythmus per se sine metro esse 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 53 


potest, metrum sine rhythmo esse non potest. quod 
liquidius ita definitur, metrum est ratio cum modulatione, 
rhythmus sine ratione metrica modulatio, plerumque 
tamen casu quodam etiam invenies rationem metricam 
in rhythmo, non artificii observatione servata, sed sono 
et ipsa modulatione ducente. (Ars Palaemonis de Met- 
rica, p. 206 f. K.) 

The clause ‘ut puta veluti sunt cantica poetarum vul- 
garium’ leaves no doubt what ‘rhythmus’ refers to in this 
little dialogue. Though the form of statement is influ- 
enced by the older doctrine, exhibited in the extracts 
preceding, what is here contrasted with ‘metrum’ is not 
the old μέλη, the “rhythmi” of Marius Vict., but the 
modern songs of the poets of the people. We have 
reached now a new meaning of ‘ rhythmus’ and ‘ rhythmi,’ 
the medieval usage. To the new style of accentual 
Latin verse the term ‘rhythmus’ was now applied, in con- 
trast with the old quantitative verse, or ‘metrum.’ This 
interesting subject falls outside the scope of these chap- 
ters: it is the central point in Kawezynski’s book, before 


cited, where it is discussed at length (p. 115 ff.) and 
other testimonies collected.! 


Through the foregoing survey, if our metrical friends 
have been rightly interpreted, we have arrived at some 
conclusions that are of value for farther investigation. 

First, contemptuous rejection of clear and consistent 
teaching of the metrici is unwise and likely to lead 
astray. Sympathetic study is not thrown away on them, 
even the most foolish of them. They are sometimes in- 
consistent with one another and with themselves; some- 
times it can be proved beyond a doubt that one is wrong ; 

1 Kawezynski’s chapters, IV-VI, traverse in part the ground gone 


over in the preceding pages. They show much acuteness, but also too 
large an admixture of error. 





54 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


in that case we need not treat his mistake as anything 
else than what it is. But not a little which has been 
called nonsense is really very good sense when under- 
stood. Westphal long ago noted how remarkably some 
of the very latest among them have preserved for us 
good and sound doctrine from an early period. By the 
fourth century B. Cc. there was already in existence a 
large body of well settled metrical tradition; each new 
writer varied this more or less, but in general it was 
handed on from generation to generation with little 
change, the agreement often extending to small verbal 
details. Our school-books on arithmetic, or on grammar, 


are fair modern parallels; textbooks of geometry and of 


logic have come down in a similar way from antiquity, 
remaining in current use, without being affected in any 
degree that could be called transforming, until quite 
recently. That long transmission of a large traditional 
system makes the study of sources for any given hand- 
book both enticing and exceedingly slippery. 

Secondly, we must not expect to find in the metrici 
adequate explanation of the more complicated and difhi- 
cult lyric meters. They left that, consciously and on 
principle, to others, and restricted themselves in general 
to meters which they were accustomed to read and to 
hear read and recited. These they treated with little or 
no reference to the actual times of syllables, when the 
ratios were something else than the conventional 1: 1 
and 2:1. For the melic rhythms in general, particularly 
the freer forms, we have to fall back on Aristoxenos, 
and interpret by him the descriptions and scattered hints 
supplied by the metrici. If a real contradiction is found 
between him and the latter, we can but follow Aristox- 
enos as the better guide. 

Finally, the teachings of the metrici cannot be accepted 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 55 


without caution ; we must first of all exercise the utmost 
care to discover the precise sense intended. Their stand- 
point, while natural and rational, was different from 
that of Aristoxenos; the same facts, viewed at such dif- 
ferent angles, and then stated in terms that bore a par- 
tially different meaning in the two systems, are not al- 
ways easily recognizable as the same. Their method, 
while not seriously defective for their purposes and their 
contemporaries, is for us defective and apt to mislead, 
even in regard to recitative verse. If we would keep our 
minds clear in regard to rhythm in language, we must 
go back of the syllable and keep steadily in view always 
the time, the time-intervals, and the combinations of 
time-intervals, embodied in the words. What we seek is 
the actual rhythms of ancient verse, as these reached 
the ear and moved the soul of the Greek listener; to that 
end alone are the old metricians worth our study. The 
end is worth a great deal, and is difficult to attain; there- 
fore anything, in methods of study or of presentation, 
that hinders its attainment should be put aside, and the 
end should be sought in the most direct way. Now the 
methods that specially characterize the metrici, as against 
Aristoxenos, though probably not a hindrance to the 
mass of their contemporaries, are to us a hindrance; to 
us they often do not state the facts without frequent, 
and frequently changing, reinterpretation of their form 
of statement into another form. Here is a constant 
source of difficulty and of tendency to misunderstanding, 
not only for beginners, but also, as we have seen, for 
well trained Hellenists and even specialists in metric. 
Keeping in view the real facts of rhythm, as the verses 
fell from the lips of the ancient reader and singer, we 
should make our terminology and entire mode of state- 
ment conform to those facts and present them as directly 





56 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


as possible, with the minimum of ambiguity or of neces- 
sity for reinterpretation. Therefore in describing even 
the simplest meters it is better to employ every available 
device for enabling us to say exactly what we mean. It 
is better not to say spondee when we mean an irrational 
trochee, and then again speak of the middle spondee of 
the elegiac pentameter when we mean a tetraseme plus 
a two-timed long; and so in other cases. In writing 
metrical schemes the marks for long and short alone add 
nothing, in themselves, to the rhythmical notation con- 
tained in the words. The ancients employed, when they 
needed them, precise terms and unambiguous signs for 
triseme, tetraseme, rests, the location of the down- and 
up-beat. We need these constantly and had better use 
them, though the metrici did not. We need also an unam- 
biguous sign for an irrational syllable; the sign > has 
been widely adopted for that purpose; it is better to use 
it than either to invent another or to go without any. 
In all these matters the utmost precision in recording 
and describing rhythms is none too great. 

Yet one more point. In the study and teaching of 
the other aspects of language we have taken what the 
Greeks taught us, and after mastering their facts and 
their system of statement we have gone beneath and 
beyond the ancient system, not hesitating to recast it 
completely, bringing to bear on the subject not only 
many new phenomena but also an improved method 
which the Greeks could not know. All departments of 
grammar are still undergoing that recasting process. 
The same process—though perhaps in less degree — is 
naturally to be expected in the study of this aspect also 
of the Greek language. I have sufficiently emphasized 
the point that the first step in that process must be the 
more complete mastery of the ancient learning. But we 


yr 


RHYTHMICUS OR METRICUS? 57 


should no more expect to stop with that than we expect 
to stop with the ancient learning in morphology or 
syntax. And the line of advance toward this desidera- 
tum, a better and fuller knowledge of the rhythms of 
Greek poetry, and a knowledge arranged in a better 
system, lies along the path opened by Aristoxenos. 





ΠῚ 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 


No better definition of rhythm has been given, or 
need be sought, than that of Aristoxenos, χρόνων τάξις 


ἀφωρισμένη., temporum inter se ordo quidam, a definite 
arrangement of times. This is probably the earliest, 
certainly the most widely current, technical sense of 
ῥυθμός among the Greeks. When they called a statue 
evpuO wos, or said that a person walked εὐρύθμως. and the 
like,’ these were probably figurative applications of the 
technical term; though it is true such uses may have 
been independently developed from the early meaning, 
order, or law, which the word has in the line of 
Archilochos, 


γίγνωσκε δ᾽ οἷος ῥυσμὸς ἀνθρώπους ἔχει. 


The essential identity and the specific characteristics of 
rhythm in many activities of lite, nature, and art were 
accurately noted and described by Aristoxenos. It is 
the more to be regretted that many people — more 
especially in English-speaking countries — whose studies 
have not familiarized them with this department of 
Greek science, still use the term, and even define it, in 
a loose, confused, and utterly unscientific way. Partic- 
ularly on the subject of modern verse we too often hear 
and read statements which their authors could not pos- 
sibly have made, had their minds been clear as to what 
rhythm is. In all such technical discussion no other 


1 Aristid. Q. I 13, p. 31 Mb. 





RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 59 


sense of the word rhythm should be for a moment 
admitted than that so clearly laid down by Aristoxenos. 

It is an aid toward precision of thought to hold fast 
an accurate idea of the relations, both of analogy and of 
contrast, between rhythm in time and symmetry in 
space. As to the latter, there is little danger of con- 
fusion. What presents itself to the eye primarily and 
constantly, and is by nature more abiding, is more easily 
grasped and more readily becomes in correct form a part 
of the unconscious mental outfit; rhythm presents itself 
most often to the ear,and whether heard or seen, it is by 
its nature temporary and unstable, a series of phenom- 
ena in unceasing flight. We may call symmetry a due 
proportion, in relation to each other, of the parts of 
something in space. Absolute equality of parts is not 
essential; but approximate equality or easily discerned 
simple ratio, of extent or of effect upon the sight in 
the larger parts, is essential. Starting from this idea 
we might describe rhythm as due proportion, in relation 
to each other, of the parts of something in time, — or 
more abstractly, as due proportion in time-intervals. 
This description is correct as far as it goes, but is defec- 
tive, because it omits one element. This element is due 
to the difference between space and time, and to the 
limitations of our senses. Due proportion of parts is 
perceived in space when the parts are few,—is per- 
ceived best when the object readily divides itself to the 
sight into halves, as a leaf, or the human figure in a front 
view, so that the main parts are but two, within which 
the minor parts may, without confusion and with in- 
creased pleasure to the spectator, bear to each other 
proportions very complicated. The parts exist contem- 
poraneously ; the symmetrical whole commonly remains 
under observation unchanged for some time; thus the 





60 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


mind is able to grasp, and to analyze in detail if it will, 
extremely complex relations of space in the parts, pro- 
vided those main groups of parts are plainly marked, 
and are but few, preferably two. In time, however, due 
proportion of numerous parts is not perceived so read- 
ily, if at all, unless the number of distinctly marked 
groups is larger, extending to at least three, preferably 
more. No two groups of times, no two parts of the 
smallest time group, are contemporaneous, or can remain 
under contemplation together except in the memory. 
Hence repetition is necessary. An amount of repetition 
which in space would seem monotonous, or at best an 
example of very simple art, does not seem so in time, 
but aids the memory and gives pleasure. The form of 
symmetry that is most closely analogous to rhythm is 
that of a long, narrow and not too intricate pattern 
consisting of a short pattern many times repeated. Ex- 
amples are the meanders, the lotos patterns, the egg-and- 


dart mouldings and other ornamental bands so frequent 
in Greek art, or our edgings of lace and embroidery, and 


o>) 


ornamental bands and borders in general. The rows of 
figures around a dipylon vase are still within the requi- 
site limits of regularity; those of the Frangois vase are 
too free. The alternating triglyphs and metopes of the 
Parthenon are a fine parallel; the Panathenaic frieze 
lacks the needful articulation. An arrangement of 
times that should be analogous to the symmetry of a fine 
pediment composition, or to any of the painted groups in 
the Sixtine Chapel or the Stanze of Raphael, would 
never be recognized as rhythmical, unless at the same 
time there ran through the whole, comprehending all 
the parts, a simpler system of grouping, analogous to 
that of the meander. An ode of Pindar, or a movement 
of a symphony, is held together and unified by the 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 61 


repetition of a small group of times, the measure or foot 
or the like; on that substratum, out of that continu- 
ously repeated though varied small group, are formed, 
by the aid of recurring variation in time and melody 
(and in Pindar of the dance), concepts of larger and yet 
larger groups, until, by repetition of groups both smaller 
and larger, the senses are sufficiently impressed to enable 
the memory to retain and the mind to comprehend a 
notion of the whole as one. To such a work a good 
parallel — comparing, of course, only the rhythm of one 
and the symmetry of the other —is a fine oriental rug of 
rich pattern and coloring. Yet it has been well noted 
that a complex work of art in space, particularly in 
three dimensions —say a temple or a statue —is not 
wholly unlike a complex piece of rhythm, as regards our 
method of acquiring an idea of the whole. In both 
memory has something to do, for the eye does not see 
all parts at once; after viewing a statue or temple from 
all sides, and a temple from the inside as well as from 
without, the various parts in temporal succession, the 
unifying must then be done by the aid of memory, as 
in the case of rhythm. But though this is true, yet 
in successive viewing of parts the time element and the 
consequent agency of memory are so much less funda- 
mental than with a work of rhythm, that the resemblance 
has little effect in diminishing the great practical 
difference. 

One other factor in the definition of rhythm must be 
insisted on, though it is tacitly assumed in the foregoing 
illustrations. The simple repetition of equal undivided 
and undifferentiated time-intervals does not produce 
rhythm. There must be a τάξις, an arrangement of 
times inter se. An unchanging single drum-beat recur- 
ring every two-thirds of a second would produce nothing 





62 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


but a succession of equal times, though experiments have 
shown that the great majority of listeners would invol- 
untarily imagine some difference between the sounds or 
the intervals, and so by a purely psychological process 
would differentiate the times, group them, and imagine 
a rhythm where objectively there was none. But if in 
that succession of unchanging drum-beats, beginning 
anywhere, you omit the second, fourth, and eighth, you 
will make a grouping of times; that series repeated is 
our simplest drum-rhythm for marching. The action of 
walking, in which the feet alternately are lifted, moved 
forward, and placed, with endlessly various play of 
muscles, produces another grouping, extremely complex 
to the eye and to the muscular sense of the walker, 
though to the ear, when audible at all, a rather simple 
one. ‘This necessity of a τάξις in rhythm is the more to 
be insisted on because many writers on modern. verse- 
rhythm ignore it. 

In recent years rhythm has been, and continues to be, 
the subject of many-sided investigation. Physicists and 
naturalists of every sort have been compelled to take 
large account of this factor in the phenomena of nature. 
Periodicity, always obvious to man in the procession of 
the seasons, in the lunar phases, in the alternation of 
day and night, is discovered to characterize about every 
kind of motion and change that the student of physics 
can measure. ‘The periodicity of astronomical and inor- 
ganic forces is reflected in the life of plants and animals 
of every grade, in health and in disease. The physio- 
logical rhythms of respiration and the heart’s beating are 
but types; in all vital processes biologists find similar 
laws. The simplest cell, whose growth can be followed 
only under the microscope, is subject to them, no less 
than the highest animal organism. Psychologists, too, 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 63 


find that all the activities of the human mind exhibit 
rhythm in great variety; there is a constantly lengthen- 
ing series of special investigations along this line. This 
is not the place to recapitulate these studies of rhythm, 
so numerous and so various, nor even to summarize 
their results. But without some realization of the ex- 
tent to which rhythm pervades the kosmos, including 
the unconscious life of man, one is liable to approach 
the subject of rhythm in language with prepossessions 
so deep-rooted that argument on some points will be 
wasted. 

In harmony with the unconscious, involuntary rhythms 
of the human organism, in part certainly and perhaps 
wholly the consequence of them, is the fact that rhythm 
in the broad sense pervades also all of man’s conscious 
and voluntary action. Alternating exertion and repose, 
tension and relaxation, is a law of the life that is regu- 
lated by will, from the larger tasks and recreations to the 
movement of the smallest muscle. But for our purposes 
this broader sense of the term must be narrowed. We 
are concerned only with forms of rhythm in which the 
lesser time-intervals that make the larger pattern are 
comparatively short. Absolute limits can hardly be 
given; but experiments appear to show that if the short- 
est unit is as long as two seconds, the mind does not 
coordinate the intervals and group them distinctly enough 
to be conscious of a rhythm. On the other hand, if the 
intervals are too short the mind does not separate them; 
they run together instead of forming groups; but of 
course continuous tones that vary regularly in pitch or 
intensity, or continuous movements that regularly change 
their direction, may by those regular variations divide 


Ss See Bolton, Rhythm, in Am. J. Psych., VI, pp. 145-238; Wundt, 
Volkerpsychologie, Ch. VII; Studies from Yale Psych. Lab., [X. 





64 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


time into intervals that fall within the necessary limits 
and are perceived as a rhythm. 

Now the fundamental fact, for our present purpose, 
is this. All activities of man that are regulated by his 
will he puts into a perceptible rhythm, so far as they 
admit such treatment without violating requirements 
that to his mind take precedence. Man is not merely a 
rhythmical animal, as all animals are; he is a rhythmiz- 
ing animal, as truly as he is a political animal. As 
men tend to unite into political communities, so the 
individual tends to rhythmize everything that he comfort- 
ably can. This tendency is not simply a matter of musi- 
cal endowment, possessed by some and not by others; it 
controls more or less fully every human being, generally 
without his being aware of it. The individual merely 
acts in the way that he finds easiest or most natural ; 
and he acts in rhythm. There are said to be people who 
cannot keep step to a drum, or with a companion; if so, 
the defect is in the power of coérdinating their action 
with something external, with a rhythm set by some- 
thing from without. But even one who has that de- 
fect makes no end of perfect rhythms of his own. He 
makes his own steps equal, or if unequal then regu- 
larly unequal; if he drives a nail or curries a horse or 
rows a boat or chews his food or drinks a glass of water, 
he makes as good rhythms as any one else. The ten- 
dency appears to be absolutely universal; the only differ- 
ence between people in this regard lies in the degree of 
consciousness of the rhythm one is producing, and the 
consequent power of controlling and consciously varying 
the rhythmic movement. There, it is true, people differ 
very much, and still more in the power of isolating and 


describing rhythms which they make or see or hear. 
But that does not affect the truth of the statement just 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 65 


made. It is a universal law that man is a creature who 
rhythmizes, in the strictest sense given to the term, 
every kind of action that admits of it. Men differ a 
good deal in capacity for acquiring languages, much more 
in capacity for teaching them; but all men not physically 
defective are endowed with speech, and speak the lan- 
guage they have heard from infancy. The rhythmizing 
impulse is no less universal than speech. 

Plato recognizes, putting it in his mythological way, 
the inborn character of the rhythmic sense, and the wide 
separation in this matter —even though it should prove 
to be a difference in degree only — between man and the 
other animals. ‘“ Young creatures cannot be quiet in 
their bodies or their voices; they are always wanting to 
move and to use their voices, now leaping and skipping, 
as it were dancing with delight, and now making all 
sorts of cries. But while the other animals have no 
perception of order or disorder (τῶν τάξεων οὐδὲ ἀταξιῶν) 
in their motions — that is, of rhythm and melody — to us 
the Muses and Apollo their leader and Dionysos have 
given the perception, accompanied by pleasure, of 
rhythm and time.” (Laws 653 d-654; also 664 e.) 

Aristotle also (Poet. 4) counts rhythm and imitation as 
equally κατὰ φύσιν: in the Aristotelian προβλήματα 
(920 b; p. 98 v. Jan), in answer to the query why all 
delight in rhythm and song, it is remarked that they are 
κατὰ φύσιν, and that infants delight in them from the 
beginning. Some of the common rhythms of every-day 
life also were noted by Greek writers. We find Aris- 
tides Q. (1 18) citing the pulse-beats as an illustration 
of the rhythm perceived by the sense of touch. Longi- 
nos on Hephaistion (p. 84 W) refers to the sound of 
blacksmiths’ hammers, the walking or galloping of 


horses, the movement of fingers, the flight of birds. 
5 





66 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Probably all these examples were taken from Aris- 
toxenos. ‘The first words in our longest fragment of his 
ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα are: Ὅτι μὲν πλείους εἰσὶ φύσεις καὶ 
ποία τις αὐτῶν ἑκάστη καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας τῆς αὐτῆς 
ἔτυχον προσηγορίας καὶ τί αὐτῶν ἑκάστῃ ὑπόκειται, ἐν 
τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένον. νῦν δὲ ἡμῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ λεκτέον 
τοῦ ἐν μουσικῇ ταττομένου ῥυθμοῦ. (P. 266 f. Mor.) 
The preceding book, then, had included some discussion 
of the different kinds of rhythm outside of the arts. 
Their natures, the underlying material of each, the vari- 
ous applications of the word ῥυθμός, had been sufficiently 
set forth to clear the way, and enable him from this 
point on to consider the rhythms of art only. There 
was the natural place for such examples as the above, 
which we may be pretty sure were introduced into the 
text-books by no later rhythmicus. 

Any observer today may find innumerable other exam- 
ples from the whole range of voluntary human action. 
The child prefers to skip and dance along rather than 
walk; the rhythm is less monotonous and more pleasing. 
Little girls jumping rope like to vary the steps; the 
boy’s hop, skip, and jump is better fun than plain jump- 
ing. A butcher’s boy chopping meat on a block does 
away with monotony and gets a touch of art into his 
task by playing whole drum-tunes with his two heavy 
cleavers. Such are the skeleton tunes played by a 
drum-corps, with no instrument to furnish the melody, — 
like the shadow picture which the X-rays make of a 
human hand. In the household, beating up an egg, 
rubbing clothes on a washboard, moulding bread, paring 
apples, shelling peas, — all alike tend to fall into longer 
or shorter periods of distinct rhythm, different for each 
kind of task, but pretty constant for any one kind in the 
hands of the same person. The operations of the shoe- 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 67 


maker, the joiner, the coal-heaver, the stevedore, exhibit 
the same tendency, so far as their nature permits, and 
are appreciably lightened thereby. 

Such observations have led to extended study of like 
phenomena. Prof. Karl Biicher, approaching the subject 
first from the standpoint of his own department of study, 
economics, soon saw that other sciences, as physiology 
and psychology, must also be called into council, while 
the subject bore directly on the origin and development 
of several of the arts as well. His book, Arbeit und 
Rhythmus,! contains a mass of material of great value 
for the student of popular music and poetry. For metric 
Biicher’s results are all the more valuable because reached 
by a trained scientific observer from another field — one 
who is both competent and at the same time quite free 
from the prejudice of a preconceived metrical theory. 
Biicher takes into view not only the familiar trades and 
occupations in modern civilized communities, but also 
and more particularly those of savage, barbarian, and 
semi-civilized peoples, of tribes in those more primitive 
stages of development through which our ancestors 
have passed. By evidence from the most widely distant 
sources it is shown that nearly all the work of primitive 
man is carried on in rhythm. When performed with 
hands and feet alone or with simple tools, many bodily 
movements are required for moderate results. The 
repetition of such simple movements unconsciously, — 
but of course originally by the exercise of will, —be- 
comes rhythmical and thereby easier, pleasanter, and 
more productive. Many movements—like stamping, 
beating, pounding, grinding, rubbing, throwing the shut- 
tle, mowing, winnowing grain by hand—produce a 
sound, or more than one kind of sound. These success- 


1 2te Aufl., Leipzig (Teubner), 1899. 





68 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


ive sounds divide time to the ear also, though in such 
cases the source and permanent regulator of the rhythm 
is not the sound but the muscular movements. To these 
movements and sounds a song is often joined, — with 
the more primitive workmen nearly always. The words 
may be very simple, perhaps nothing more than inartic- 
ulate cries, often nearly or quite nonsense; often on the 
other hand it is an intelligible piece of verse, its subject 
more or less closely connected with the work. The tune 
also varies from the simplest, hardly to be called musical, 
to a folk-tune that a musician’s ear is pleased with. The 
song observes the same rhythm with the work, which 
regulates it, and at the same time is furthered by it. 
The additional expenditure of energy is overbalanced in 
effect on fatigue by the pleasure and stimulus. Biicher 
gives the words and music for a large number of these 
work-songs from all quarters of the earth. Especially 
noticeable is the rhythmical form, and the effect of such 
rhythmizing of work, when two or more work together. 
The rhythm of labor, often with song, is then not only 
regulative for the individual, but it becomes a means of 
codrdinating several workmen. That is particularly the 
case when the work demands codperation, and that in 
various ways. The simplest kind of such effect is seen 
when sailors hauling on a rope utter a rude call which 
is hardly song, but which marks the time for tension and 
relaxation of effort, and so enables all to apply their 
strength at the same instant. The stimulus of rivalry 
is often thus introduced, as in the case, once familiar in 
many lands, of a company of mowers or reapers. One 
leads off, the next tries to keep as near him as possible, 
in order not to seem inferior to the first and not to be 
caught by the third, who is pressing on behind. The 
leader too has his pride in being foremost, and will set 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 69 


a good pace, to the notable increase of results. Among 
the peasants such tasks were once generally accompanied 
by mowing and reaping songs. Boat songs are a well- 
known example of the same thing. Our old triad of the 
dance, poetry, and music wears many forms but is easily 
recognized. 

A few words on the question of the regulator in the 
triad. With his eye on the labor primarily, Biicher sees 
in that — correctly enough, so far as the united triad in 
his examples goes —the central thing to which the rest 
conforms. But we need to look more closely at the 
vocal element. Obviously tune in itself has no content 
of alien nature, that limits in any way the duration of 
the single note; an essential quality of purely musical 
sound is that it be prolongable at pleasure, within the 
capacity of the instrument. So far as the vehicle of the 
tune is a vocal utterance devoid of all non-musical 
meaning, inarticulate or mainly of the vowel character, 
there is nothing outside of the motions involved in the 
labor (and of course the capacity of the vocal organs, 
particularly the breath) to limit the duration of each 
note and regulate the rhythm. But when, in place of 
such vocal sound, true words are employed, another ele- 
ment comes in. The words did not originate in the 
work. They are brought to it from without, already 
possessing certain firmly inherent qualities derived from 
a multitude of other uses and associations. Among 
those inherent qualities is a more or less definite mean- 
ing, no more affected by its employment in a work-song 
than by its employment in any other context. Insepar- 
able from the meaning and equally inherent, in all 
languages, is a more or less definitely fixed relative 
duration of the syllable in comparison with adjacent 
syllables. Misunderstanding is here easy; let me make 





70 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


it as difficult as possible. First by exclusion. Some 
words of a simple phonetic character, expressing emotion 
mainly, retain always the capacity of almost indefinite 
prolongation that belongs to purely musical or inarticulate 
vowel sound. Words like ah! whew! are not distorted 
in the least by a lengthened pronunciation in a sliding 
tune; such utterance merely increases, while it may more 
closely define, the emotional expression. In phonetic 
and semantic character such words approach purely 
musical sound, and naturally approach it in their treat- 
ment as regards duration. For the moment leave these 
words aside. With them are to be placed a few ex- 
clamations, not so simple phonetically, which originally 
had a more intellectual semantic content, but which in 
use have been largely stripped of that and now are 
merely expressions of emotion, like those in the former 
class. Such are many exclamations like gracious! 
mercy! or Herr Je/ Again, in loud calling to one at 
a distance, a simple phrase, or the last syllable of a name, 
may be likewise prolonged, in a manner that in other 
circumstances would be an inadmissible distortion. The 
need of making the sounds carry an unusual distance, 
or against unfavorable conditions, we accept as excusing 
what we all nevertheless feel to be abnormal though not 
uncommon. Once more, in modern singing we accept 
now as a matter of course, for the sake of the musical 
effect, extraordinary prolongation of vowels. We allow 
the composer to subordinate the word-form, and the 
meaning of the words in detail, absolutely to his musical 


idea. Handel’s oratorios exhibit this in extreme degree. 
But all will admit, I think, that this is a special case 
hardly bearing on our present problem. It is a con- 


sequence of the extraordinary modern development of 
music, quite foreign to antiquity, and held within pretty 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 11 


strict limits in real folk-song, even that which arises now 
among a people largely influenced by the more freely 
developed art. This too, then, may be excluded. Put- 
ting these cases aside, the principle asserted is this. 
Even in a language whose syllables are so elastic as in 
English, there are limits of relative length, narrower 
than those fixed by the organs of speech or the duration 
of the breath, to exceed which in speech or in artless 
song — that is, in song not composed by one well schooled 
in the specifically modern developments of music — 
appears unnatural, a distortion of the word, and is there- 
fore not admitted, except for a distinctively comic 
purpose. The fact seems indisputable when we follow 
in thought the rise of one of these work-songs. When 
words with a definite meaning are made to accompany 
the worker’s motion, in order to fit the rhythm in a way 
to satisfy the worker they must have been selected with 
some reference to those “natural” — that is, previously 
and elsewhere determined, however elastic — limits of 
relative duration in the syllables. In languages employ- 
ing a marked stress or word-accent, that element too 
must be regarded; a syllable that in the same context 
would receive when spoken a markedly stronger stress 
is not in satisfactory harmony with the work-rhythm, if 
so placed as to accompany the weakest muscular tension. 
I trust the point is clear. While it is true that the 
rhythm of the work-song is primarily determined by 
the work-rhythm, the words also possess, before being 
selected and placed in the song, inherent qualities of 
syllabic length, perhaps stress too, such that the com- 
pleted specific combination of words naturally carries 
the same rhythm independently, when dissociated from 
the work, and even to those who have forgotten or never 
knew the work-rhythm in itself, provided they know 





72 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


the language. The work-rhythm leads the worker to 
create a parallel rhythm in another medium; the second 
ῥυθμιξόμενον is of such character that its rhythm is per- 
fectly preserved by it independently. Of course this is 
true in a degree slightly varying with individual cases. 
As the verbal rhythm is in the worker’s mind secondary, 
it is not always perfected in every detail; but as the 
words become more important to him, the inclination is 
stronger to make their rhythm more independently clear. 
With a view to the farther course of this chapter it 
seemed necessary to put this relation between the words 
and the rhythm beyond question. 

The following summary I quote in substance from 
Biicher (p. 357 ff.). “In that center of convergence we 
see work still undistinguished from art and from play. 
There is a single human activity, a solution of work, play, 
and art. In this unity of physical and mental action 
Wwe perceive the germs of development along all those 
lines... . The arts of motion (music, dance, poetry ) 
come into being in the performance of work: the arts of 
rest, of form, are embodied, if only in the form of orna- 
ment, in the results of work. This is all simply the 
instinctive action of life in common, average humanity, 
—in savages, in peasants, in working people. The 
bond that holds together these elements, which we have 
come to think so unlike, is rhythm, whose source is in 
the very essence of the human organism.” 

Allied to the work-song and a little nearer to our 
goal are verses that children recite or sing in con- 
nection with play. Great numbers of these are current, 
probably in all languages in which children enjoy games 
together. They are handed on almost purely by oral 
tradition, many of them from one child-generation 
directly to another, or rather from slightly older to 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 73 


slightly younger children joining in the same game; 
parents who have forgotten them discover suddenly that 
their children are reciting them. Others are used by 
parents and nurses to amuse infants. Some are very 
old, existing in many versions. I will cite only a few, 
quoting, if at all, in the exact form that was familiar to 


my childhood. 
Counting out rimes? are generally doggerel. One 


child “ counts out” by repeating the words, pointing in 
succession to all around the circle, to a new individual 
with every heavily stressed syllable. The person pointed 
at on the last syllable of the stanza, always a stressed 
syllable, is “out”; the operation is repeated with the 
rest, until only one is left, who is “it.” The rhythmic 
pointing is a sort of beating time; the stressed syllables 
recur at equal intervals; between them may be one or 
two syllables or none. No attentive onlooker can fail to 
distinguish, whether he can describe it correctly or not, 
the very exact rhythm. 

The following is a verse that may sound like non- 
sense, but which still had a very distinct and agreeable 
meaning to many New England country families thirty- 
five years ago. 

Bean porridge hot, 

Bean porridge cold, 
Bean porridge in the pot 
Nine days old. 


This was accompanied by a play, which must be de- 
scribed in full. Two persons are seated face to face and 
close together; while the words are repeated by both or 
by one alone, both make the following movements. 


1 See H. C. Bolton, Counting out Rhymes of Children, London, 
1888, 





14 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Bean — each person slaps both palms on his own knees ; 

por — both palms together ; 

hot — both palms against partner’s, right against left, 
left against right ; 

Bean porridge cold — same play repeated ; 

Bean porridge — as betore ; 

in — right palm against partner’s right ; 

pot — both palms together ; 

Nine — left palm against partner’s left; 

days — both palms together ; 

old — both palms against partner’s as on hot, 


[Then repeat ad libitum. ] 


The louder the slapping noises the greater the fun; 
generally the speed would be gradually increased until 
one or the other made a mistake. The rhythm of the 
play is sharply marked, and the words being well known 
were often not recited aloud, merely running along in 
the mind of the players to help them keep the order of 
the changes. And on the other hand the rhythm of the 
words without the play is just as distinct and unmistak- 
able. They were often recited alone; there could be 
no better illustration of perfectly independent but par- 
allel rhythms in two different mediums. Neither regu- 
lates the other. Which was the original one, which 
secondary? No one can say; but as the words have an 
independent meaning and the play has not, I should 
cuess the word-jingle to have been first invented. And 
the rhythm is plainly this, expressed in metrical symbols: 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 75 


The symbols are intended to indicate merely the time- 
intervals and their arrangement. Where two are writ- 
ten the upper indicates the intervals marked off by the 
syllables, the lower those marked off by the play. So 
written the word-rhythm appears a trifle more varied 
than the play-rhythm; but that is merely because the 
symbols fail to note some of the changes of the play. 
In fact the four hands in alternating pairs, now against 
each other and now against the knees, make a rhythm 
that is rather complex. The hand-rhythm alone is 
indeed threefold, according as it is perceived by the mus- 
cular sense, the ear, or the eye. In like manner that of 
the words is twofold; no symbols have been invented 
that “really represent more than the larger divisions. 
In the words each distinct time is marked by the begin- 
ning of a syllable, or by the transition from one syllable 
to the next; more precisely by the beginning of the 
vowel of each syllable. The word-accent is prominent 
as a strong stress on the vowels of the more important 
intervals ; stress on the first syllable of porridge and on 
days 18 slightly subordinated; that of in, which is not 
in itself a strong word, is treated in the rhythm as equal 
to those that would ordinarily be considered heavier. 
Whether the words hot, cold, and old really fill the whole 
interval (except for a minute fraction required for the 
break in sense), or whether they occupy but half, the 
remainder being left vacant, one may feel uncertain. 
At first thought one would say the latter; but closer 
observation, and examination of gramophone records, 
incline me decidedly to the former explanation. Rhyth- 
mically it makes no difference which; in either case the 
Whole interval from the beginning of the syllable to 
the beginning of the next is the same; and that is what 
the rhythmic sense takes account of. In the play each 





76 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


distinct time is marked at its beginning by audible contact 
of the palm with the knee or another hand; the rest of 
the interval is to the ear vacant, to the eye and mus- 
cular sense it is filled out by the bodily movements. 
The close of the last interval is unmarked; the uncon- 
scious arithmetician in us merely assumes it. Still far- 
ther, the intervals fall into a complex grouping. In the 
words each line is a group, the first and second together 
are a larger group, as are the third and fourth; rimes 
are one sign of this, but the variations of times, apart 
from the rime, would alone suffice to group the whole in 
the same manner. The same grouping appears in the 
play as well. So far in this description technical terms 
have been avoided, but it is quite clear that the rhythm is 
what the Greeks called dactylic, in what musicians now 
call common (or perhaps 5) time. Each foot or meas- 
ure is a dactyl or its equivalent ; the single intervals are 
of three magnitudes, standing to each other in the ratio 
of 1, 2, 4: in the terminology of Aristoxenos the χρόνοι 
ποδικοί are the χρόνος πρῶτος, χρόνος δίσημος. χρόνος 
τετράσημος. The entire περίοδος consists of four κῶλα, 
grouped by twos, each κῶλον being a dipody. 

There is a little three-part round that is often taught 
to companies of older children. It has doubtless been 
printed, but I do not remember to have seen it; it lends 
itself easily to the Greek method of musical notation, as 
the rhythm of the melody is that of the words, only 
more exactly observed. Placing above the several syl- 
lables the letters that indicate the notes of our scale 
(the middle octave in capitals, A-G, the next above in 
small letters), it runs, in the key of C, as on the opposite 
page. 

In reading the words quietly, without πλάσμα, there 
are places where the rhythm may be doubtful. Some 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 


EB D Cc 
Three blind mice; [thrice] 


G F Ε' EB 
See how they run; [thrice] 

G c c ba »b c G G 
They all ran after the farmer’s wife; 


G cee ο b a bcG G 

She cut off their tails with a carving knife; 
G cc cob a bc G G G 
You never did see such a sight in your life. 


(Repeat ad libitum. ] 


phrases might be spoken in quite another rhythm, were 
they not associated with corresponding phrases that 
admit of no doubt. But in the whole combination, if one 
simply takes the youthful attitude towards the lines, pro- 
nouncing them with vivacity, so as to rouse the children’s 
imagination and make them see the scene described, 
—that is, if one pronounces them with appropriate 
Trdopa—then the rhythm is not doubtful at all. If 
one carries the vivacity a trifle farther, and gives to his 
utterance the musical quality of the singing voice, the 
rhythm becomes unequivocally that in which the lines 
are always sung. 






















































































































































































78 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Or in metrical symbols: 


| 
| 
Ι 
} 
i 


hs es bes Cote! i as 


wuvuluvuluvuul te 


As the three parts are heard together, no confusion as 
to the relative lengths of syllables is possible. The 
movement is trochaic. The first περίοδος consists of 
three trisemes, making an incomplete dimeter, thrice 
repeated; the second is similar, but the second foot is 
now a plain trochee; the third consists of three dimeters, 
with one trochee resolved into a tribrach in the first 
κῶλον, two in the second, three in the third. No one 
will doubt that this correctly represents the time inter- 
vals of the music ; any one who duly considers the terms 
in which I have stated the relation between the spoken 
rhythm and that of the music, and the true character 
and function of what the ancients called πλάσμα. must 
allow that the words carry the same rhythm inde- 
pendently. 

As was remarked in the preceding chapter, a great 
number of lyric poems have been set to music on the 
same principle. The composer is absolutely free to sub- 
stitute his own for the poet’s rhythm, and commonly 
does so; but the older relation is so natural that it is 
even now often preferred throughout a song, and still 
oftener with only a few slight deviations. I will cite 
two examples to put beside the Heidenrislein, for still 
fuller illustration of what seems to me an important side 
of our subject. 

The first is an old setting of Ben Jonson’s To 
Celia; the metrical symbols alone will suffice, conform- 
ing strictly to the music, which may be found in the 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 79 


Collection Litolff, No. 889, English National Album, 
p. 16. Where the tune, however, passes from one pitch 
to another on the same syllable, my scheme unites the 
two eighth notes into one; the relation is exactly the 
same as in Greek music. 


Drink to me only with thine eyes, 


ὡω we eee en eee oe 


And I will pledge with mine; 
ὠμὸς χὦ ἊΒ “1 Rede ΑἹ 
Or leave a kiss but in the cup, 


“st 4b) CS Oe Oe 


And Ill not look for wine. 
ust co αὐ ω OR Ἁ 


The thirst that from my soul doth rise 


ω ee ω vu | ω aa 
Doth ask a drink divine; 
ω ΦΈΣΙ ee 
But might I οὗ Jove’s nectar sup, 


ω Ψ᾽ ea ee, ee, ως 


I would not change for thine. 
ἜΣ oe oe enn ue Peed 


The musical time is 8. Two things are noticeable. 
First, the syllables “Or leave a” and “But might I” 
would be read more naturally as v! — v; but since the 
corresponding syllables of the opening line naturally take 
the musical form vy uv v, the composer has chosen to 
treat that as the model, and has followed it at the begin- 
ning of each couplet, except on the words “ The thirst 
that.” Secondly, it is a part of the πλάσμα, here carried 
a step farther than it was by the ancient musician, that 
all irrational syllables are in music made unequivocally 
short in the writing. On the other hand a solo singer 
rendering these lines with expression, giving the words 





80 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


their due weight, would certainly depart from the exact 
ratios of the written notes, and would restore the irra- 
tionality. When irrational syllables are rather numerous 
in the verse, a composer who otherwise follows exactly 
the verse-rhythm is likely to shift the whole from an 
iambic or 2 time to # or 4 time. 

A modern song treated in like manner by the com- 
poser is Tennyson’s Sweet and Low, set to music by 
J. Barnby. As before, I give of the music the rhythm 
only, since that alone concerns us; both words and music 
are well known wherever English is spoken. The time 
is again §. 


Sweet and low, sweet and low, 
Wind of the western sea, 
Low, low, breathe and blow, 
Wind of the western sea. 
Over the rolling waters go, 
Come from the dying moon 
and blow, 
Blow him again to me ; 
While my little one, while my 
pretty one 
Sleeps. 


Two details call for farther notice. The last word, 
standing as it does for a whole line, is by the musi- 
cian made equal to a line by prolongation through 
two measures: in the air and bass the whole is on one 
pitch, while the harmony is varied by simple changes 
in alto and tenor. This is an extreme instance of τονή 
to fill the time which a reader would simply leave va- 
cant, waiting silently for the proper interval to elapse 
before beginning the next stanza. Also to the words 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 51 


> 


“little” and “pretty,” the composer gave a dotted 
eighth and a sixteenth note instead of two eighths. 
These are the only departures from the rhythm given 
in my scheme. 

The significance of these and like songs for our pur- 
pose lies in this. The musician felt and expressed the 
same rhythm as the poet. But the only notation of the 
poet was the words. They suffice in practice for one 
who knows the language, and they were enough to give 
the rhythm to the musician. But they do not require 
either poet or reader to analyze and state, even to him- 
self, precisely what the rhythm is. But modern musical 
notation, vastly superior in this to the ancient, not 
merely permits but requires the relative length as well 
as pitch of every note to be written, and that too with 
a precision which often goes beyond that of the actual 
rendering, so that various signs, as a hold or accelerando 
or tempo rubato, are required to give warning that the 
rigid ratios of the notes are to be varied somehow. Owing 
therefore to this characteristic of his notation, the com- 
poser of necessity and habitually analyzes the rhythm 
and gives a full and exact account of it to himself and 
to his reader. Hence in such songs as these we have 
our commonest poetic rhythms described for us by men 
of special training in just that direction. 

Nursery rimes that are not sung, nor accompanied by 
a rhythmical play, but are recited with delight by chil- 
dren, are another class of verbal combinations in which 
the rhythm is both independent and unmistakable. 
Children like to repeat them with complete πλάσμα, 
which in this case we call sing-song, of a kind that in 
them is often charming. It is chiefly the rhythm that 
makes the jingle pleasing; they therefore like to make 


the rhythm perfect with little reference to sense. When 
6 





82 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


real poetry is taken in hand, the childish tendency to 
recite it in a similar way has to be corrected, until what 
adults consider the proper balance between rhythm and 
sense is attained. But in the latter case also the essential 
character of the rhythm is the same. Without πλάσμα 
the rhythm is not mathematically exact; an educated 
adult does not wish it too exact. To recur to our old 
comparison, in a fine oriental rug the hand-made, slightly 
irregular ornament and intentionally varied symmetry 
are more interesting and more beautiful than the dead 
mechanical precision of a machine-woven pattern; but 
a geometrically perfect pattern may be said to 116 at the 
basis of the Persian weaver’s design. So in verse there 
is an exact pattern underneath, to which the reader 
approximates, now more closely, now less, as the phonetic 
character of the words or the requirements of sense and 
expression permit ordemand. The great mass of English 
poetry moves in one or another variety of triple rhythm ; 
but many examples, more especially but not exclusively 
comic, are in double or quadruple time. 

Some have denied this and maintained the impossibility 
of it. One may even discern in some quarters the notion 
that a Hellenist, by reason of his acquaintance with 
ancient metric, is somehow disqualified for giving an 
opinion on the metric of modern languages. There is a 
historical reason for such prejudice, in that attempts 
have occasionally been made to apply rules of classical 
prosody to English, and men imperfectly acquainted 
with both Greek and English meters have transferred to 
the latter crude ideas of the former, with unedifying 
results. Hence an attempt to state in terms of time- 
ratios the rhythms of English verse rouses in some people 
a feeling of suspicion that sadly disturbs the judicial 
balance. In fact there is in the study of these rhythms 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 83 


an almost unworked field for one who has the requisite 
preliminary training and is able to devote his attention 
without prejudice to the actual living facts of speech. 
What is needful is that one should calmly ask and con- 
sistently apply the answers to two questions — the same 
which Aristoxenos asked and answered in regard to 
Greek — namely: What is rhythm? and What rhythms 
are produced when young children who have no theory, 
or adults possessed of a cultivated taste, speak or read 
English naturally 9} 

Presupposing that mental attitude, — without which 
farther agreement in this direction is hopeless, —if any 
reader is inclined to distrust my determinations of 
rhythm in specific cases, I can only urge upon him 
two things. First, let him carefully observe the work- 
ing of the tendency toward πλάσμα, not merely in 
himself and not merely in my examples, but in every- 


1 The late Sidney Lanier, in The Science of English Verse (N. Y., 
Scribners, 1880), brought to this subject the endowment of a genuine 
poet and of a competent musician — a rare combination. The essen- 
tial truth of the matter he discerned and stated clearly. But he lacked 
the conventional philological and scientific training, and was both 
poet and musician; hence his presentation of the subject was not in 
the conventional manner of philologians, and repelled them, — espe- 
cially those who were not musical and therefore could not understand 
him. Some important details also Lanier did not see quite correctly. 
Therefore the beginning made by him has not been followed up as it 
deserved. My paper, Quantity in English Verse (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc., 
1885, Vol. XVI, pp. 78-103), aimed to define more precisely and to 
extend Lanier’s principles; it might be now much improved. Some 
scholars of repute, and even of well-deserved fame, were unable, in 
criticising us, to free their minds from a tangle of confused notions 
about word-accent and “quantity,” and ask themselves the two funda- 
mental questions above mentioned. But a younger generation is now 
approaching the subject; the growing appreciation of Lanier’s poetry 
and the publication of his letters have led to better recognition of his 
critical insight, — of his power to draw 


“From Art’s unconscious act Art’s conscious laws.” 


παν SU AE SE NE SURE SOLS NSM ST DE SAB SFA παν, TSAI, Ri is OC | κν 





84 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


day life about him, whenever one makes an effort to 
convey the emotion or the full meaning of any form of 
words. Secondly, let the objector ask himself without 
prepossession whether his capacity for detecting and 
analyzing rhythm, in distinction from the power of orig- 
inating or imitating it, has been in any way systemat- 
ically developed. For example, has he learned to read 
music readily, or has he been trained or trained himself 
in genuinely quantitative reading of ancient verse, dac- 
tyls and anapests in quadruple time? If not, and if 
he has not also practised a good deal the analysis of 
rhythm in language, then he will do well to admit that 
his first impression on such questions may not be trust- 
worthy. In regard to tune, a particular succession of 
pitch-intervals in the musical scale, we put little confi- 
dence in the judgment of one whose ear for pitch has 
not been well disciplined. If one cannot sing the scales 
correctly, or cannot tune a violin or tell with certainty 
whether a piano is in tune or not, —and some very good 
people and admirable scholars cannot, — then he rightly 
distrusts his opinion on such matters. ‘The problem is 
at bottom the same in the two cases; in both it isa 
question of discriminating fairly simple ratios. In both 
cases the thing can be done by mechanical means, so 
that a person without ear, that is a person who has no 
native or acquired faculty in that line, must be con- 
vinced. But such mechanical determination of pre- 
viously unknown pitch-ratios in music or time-ratios in 
language is difficult, requiring complicated and sensitive 
apparatus. In the case of rhythm the attempts hitherto 
made, so far as they are known to me, have produced 
no fully trustworthy results, owing to the imperfection 
of instruments or methods. More experimenters are 
now attacking the problem; better success will certainly 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 85 


follow and is much to be desired. But meantime, for 
the trained ear to determine the ratios between success- 
ive time-intervals in a rhythmical series is a task of the 
same kind as for the trained ear to determine the relative 
place, with reference to the musical scale, of successive 
tones in a melody. Instruments of precision are as 
necessary in the one case as in the other, and no more 
necessary. But the ear, in both cases alike, must have 
been adequately trained; else its judgment is without 
value. As regards music there are many in the commu- 
nity who have had the requisite training and practice, 
both for the pitch of the notes and for their rhythm; 
an orchestra plays together, musicians agree in their 
statements on such points, and we believe them. But 
language rhythms have received comparatively little 
attention from this point of view; that sufficiently 
account: for the lack of agreement and the sense of help- 


1 My colleague, Professor Scripture, has for several years been 
conducting in the Yale Psychological Laboratory a series of experi- 
ments in this direction; the first instalment of his results appeared in 
the Studies from the Yale Psych. Lab. VII (1899). With his high sense 
of the delicacy and accuracy required in the apparatus, and his un- 
usual skill in devising means of meeting those requirements, the 
mechanical problems have demanded much time for their solution. 
It quickly became apparent also that much preliminary work on the 
elementary sounds of language was necessary. Hence on the rhyth- 
mical problem hardly more than a beginning has been made. This 
beginning, however, has brought out some important facts, which will 
be cited later; and his researches promise to be of great value. 

Not as a criticism of Professor Scripture, but for its general bear- 
ing, the following should be added. It sometimes detracts from the 
utility of such experiments that those who conduct them are apt to 
cherish too great confidence in the exclusive sufficiency of mechanical 
analysis, and cannot easily admit the inaccuracy of their own machines. 
That is a fault, when it exists, no less serious than the converse, 
undervaluation of such methods of study. The latter was once unduly 


prevalent and strong; the tendency now is to trust too exclusively to 
mechanism. 


ji i ann pa 0 Alan UMAR ei uel en all ANE τ = 





86 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


lessness before them that are so common. Even a 
musician whose rhythmic sense is unhesitatingly accu- 
rate in music may be obliged to accustom himself to the 
different character of the ῥυθμιζόμενον in speech betore 
his ear becomes equally sure on rhythms that are realiy 
simpler. And then in rhythm, as in tone or harmony, it 
is one thing to reproduce a combination already noted 
down, or to make a new combination of your own, and 
another and a far less easy thing to distinguish accurately 
a combination that is merely heard. But a musician who 
is interested in the subject can with practice acquire 
a high degree of accuracy in analyzing rhythms 
of language. It is no claim of special proficiency 
on my part to say that in-renewing such attempts 
frequently during nearly twenty years a marked gain 
in facility has been perceptible, though there are plenty 
of constant combinations, unhesitatingly made in ordi- 
nary speech and often heard, that still elude analysis. 
My experience is cited solely to illustrate the utility and 
the necessity of practice. 

It is not my intention to go farther into details on the 
subject of English verse. From this unavoidable digres- 
sion I return to the question which the preceding pages 
of the chapter lead up to: How, in general terms, does 
the rhythmizing impulse deal with English speech? 
Spoken words in connected discourse are a series of 
bodily movements producing sounds. If there were 
not a strong unconscious tendency to rhythmize those 
movements and the corresponding sounds, then language 
would be the sole exception in the whole life of man to 
the otherwise universal rule; we should have in lan- 
guage many series of sounds indissolubly united with 
voluntary but almost automatic bodily movements, 
repeated many times daily, eminently rhythmizable, yet 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 87 


not rhythmized. Of course the exception does not 
exist. The rhythms produced are of essentially the same 
character as those of labor, or of music. How are they 
produced in the medium of the English language ? 

On an earlier page emphasis was laid on the fact that 
certain limits, between which the duration of syllables 
may vary, are fixed. Here it must be emphasized that 
every syllable and every vowel and every consonant, 
within those limits, is more or less variable. The elas- 
ticity of English consonants was noticed at length by 
Sweet in his article On Danish Pronunciation (Trans. 
Phil. Soc., 1873-4, p. 110), and was dwelt on in my paper 
above referred to (p. 98f.) ; gramophone records prove it 
beyond all possibility of doubt, and for mutes no less 
than for fricatives and liquids. (See Scripture, op. cit., 
passim.) This furnishes for the free working of the 
rhythmizing impulse a range no less wide than is fur- 
nished in the laborer’s task by the natural play of limb 
and muscle; which is also confined within strict limits, 
for the human leg can step and the human arm reach 
and the individual muscle contract only so far. In not 
a few syllables the elasticity resides far more in the con- 
sonantal part than in the vowel; and the ear is more 
offended by much prolongation of accented “short” 
vowels like those of pin, sunny, many, valley, than by 
the prolongation of adjacent consonants or unaccented 
vowels, or by the shortening of “long” vowels or diph- 
thongs. 

Another principle is of great importance. The small- 
est time-intervals recognized as constituents of rhythm 
are those marked by the syllables, not those of the sena- 
rate vowels and consonants within the syllable. The 
times of the elements united into a syllable are not sepa- 
rately noted with reference to any ratios between them- 





88 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


selves. The times of the syllables are so noted, with 
reference to ratios between them, and as forming little 
groups, feet, which form larger groups. The times of 
the successive sounds within a syllable flow on and run 
into each other without break ; but something happens 
in passing from one syllable to the next that causes us to 
feel that there a break was made. That is what chiefly 
gives language its articulate or jointed character. Pre- 
cisely where in the flow of sounds that articulating pro- 
cess, that audible break, occurs — if we come down to 
the minutest measurement — it is difficult to say; but 
it occurs somewhere; all recognize that speech is jointed 
and that syllables are real entities. It occurs some- 
where between the vowels. Rhythmically, as it appears 
to me, it is the beginning of the vowel that begins the 
new rhythmic time. That is the place where the sound 
becomes louder again, where the stronger vibrations 
originating in the vocal chords reach the ear with less 
hindrance and with heavier impact. This would account 
for the fact that the consonants, however many, before 
the first vowel of a line or κῶλον have no rhythmical 
effect, in Greek, Latin, or English. Anyhow, the sylla- 
bic times are the smallest constituents of rhythm recog- 
nized as distinct by the rhythmic sense. If the curve 
of a transcribed gramophone record be so enlarged that 
three syllables making a dactyl ocupy 300 mm., it may 
not be possible to point out within a millimeter where 
the transition from one syllable to the next occurs; but 
it will be possible to locate it within perhaps 10 mm., 
and the transition is a real thing, the syllable a dis- 
tinct rhythmic time. 

Given, now, any series of words, selected wholly with- 
out reference to rhythm, simply to convey an idea in 
ordinary talk, any one who speaks naturally the entire 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 89 


series yields unconsciously to an impulse to arrange the 
syllabic times in some regular or approximately regular 
way. ΤῸ that end he deals pretty freely with the times 
of individual vowels and consonants, extending some, 
contracting others. Conspicuous points which he takes 
account of first of all, and is impelled to make most 
distinctly regular in their arrangement, are the more 
prominent among the accented vowels. But there is 
considerable freedom even here; some vowels that are 
certainly accented and felt as accented are yet made 
subordinate to others that occur in a more convenient 
location for the immediate purpose, and some vowels of 
slight prominence, or not accented at all in other com- 
binations, if they chance to stand more conveniently, 
may be treated in the rhythm as the equals of strongly 
accented ones. Yet the sense of separate individuality 
in the syllables includes a recognition of limits to the 
freedom of treatment, to exceed which would be distor- 
tion. ‘Therefore in ordinary conversation the rhythmiz- 
ing impulse is only partially successful; it is held in 
check by the previously determined character of the ῥυθμι- 
ζόμενον, by the sense that if one prolongs or shortens 
syllables too much they will sound queer. That would 
offend more than the resulting rhythm would please. 
Hence there are frequent interruptions of the even flow. 
A few successive syllables take easily a distinct rhythm; 
then comes an obstruction, a little shift, then a few more 
syllables more easily arranged, and so on with infinite 
variety. The impulse is constant so long as the words 
come without hesitation; obstructions are frequent, 
changes in the character of the rhythm from one phrase 
to another are numerous, the result so complex that 
detailed analysis is impossible without instruments, and 
those more perfect than have yet been employed. Such 


I a 


a ae nate SSA ES mY SEE OC RSS ESSE 





90 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


is the process in speech when the words are not origin- 
ally selected or arranged at all with reference to rhythm. 

But every one who speaks or writes carefully for the 
public, if while making his sentences he is conscious of 
their sound (some are not so conscious), does select 
words and arrange them more or less, to make them 
easier for the rhythmizing impulse to deal with to its 
satisfaction, so that they may more easily assume a 
somewhat closer approach to regularity. Somewhat 
closer, I say; for we do not like a too perfect rhythm 
in professed prose. Aristotle has put this as well as 
any one. τὸ δὲ σχῆμα τῆς λέξεως δεῖ μήτε ἔμμετρον εἶναι 
μήτε ἄρρυθμον: τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀπίθανον (πεπλάσθαι γὰρ 
δοκεῖ) καὶ ἅμα καὶ ἐξίστησιν :" προσέχειν γὰρ ποιεῖ τῷ 
ὁμοίῳ, πότε πάλιν ἥξει. . .. διὸ ῥυθμὸν δεῖ ἔχειν τὸν 
λόγον, μέτρον δὲ μή" ποίημα γὰρ ἔσται. ῥυθμὸν δὲ μὴ 
ἀκριβῶς " τοῦτο δὲ ἔσται ἐὰν μέχρι του 7. (Πού. ΠῚ, 8, 
1-3.) “The words should be neither metrical or un- 
rhythmical. The former awakens mistrust, for it seems 
artificial ; at the same time it puts one out, for it makes 
one look for the like and ask when it will recur. Hence 
prose should contain rhythm, but not meter, else it will 
be verse. And rhythm not too exactly; as when it is 
carried only to a certain extent.” That is, no one pat- 
tern may be carried far or repeated _in close proximity 
without drawing attention to itself away from what is 
more important, and that would not be agreeable. If 
the thought rises for a moment, becoming nobly emo- 
tional, elevated, what we call poetical, our sense of pro- 
priety admits a closer approach to perfect rhythm. But 
such closer approach when the thought is not distinctly 
above the ordinary prose level is felt to be affectation 
and pretence, form without the substance. But whether 
the composition be easy or not for the rhythmizing 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 91 


impulse to deal with, and whether the resulting rhythm 
be appropriate and pleasing or not, the process in read- 
ing the composition aloud is the same as before, — 
an entirely unconscious one in most people, more or 
less consciously attended to by the actor or practised 
speaker. 

In the expression of the best thought and the higher 
ranges of emotion, in the “most perfect speech of man,” 
we think a more perfect rhythmical form appropriate. 
We expect the poet to wed his thought to melodious 
verse, — so to select and arrange words that the voice 
will easily effect a satisfying arrangement of the times. 
The process in speaking them is stid the same; but the 
material supplied is more readily arranged, and the 
result is more regular, —is not only ῥυθμός, but μέτρον, 
in Aristotle’s sense. And in verse itself there are all 
grades of success in rhythm; even in a single author 
like Robert Browning we find some poems or lines of 
exquisitely perfect form beside others in which the 
author’s intention is not clear, to the vexation of the 
reader. 

Thus three classes of cases may be distinguished, of 
three grades of adaptability to rhythmization in delivery. 
But the classes are evidently not separated by a sharp 
dividing line; such classification is nothing but a con- 
venience in presentation. In reality there is no break 
in continuity in the series of cases, and no essential 
change in the mode of vocal action, in passing from the 
most unstudied or least rhythmical utterances of every- 
day life to the most perfect examples of poetic rhythm. 
To repeat once more the fundamental principle which 
we have reached, and from which this whole investiga- 
tion sets out: All speech, like all other bodily activity 
in which similar movements are repeated at brief inter- 





92 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


vals of time, tends towards rhythm, and approaches 
regularity of rhythm as closely as the phonetic and 
semantic character of the words, all things considered, 
permits. For simplicity our attention in this chapter 
has been confined to English; but the principle is prob- 
ably universal. It certainly applies to the few languages 
which I know enough about to judge. In literature 
poetry is generally earlier than prose, in great part be- 
cause verse as an artistic rhythmical form is simpler 
and more intelligible than prose. It therefore pleases 
earlier, — pleases composer and listener alike. Verse 
isolates a single pattern of rhythm from the tangle of 
rhythms made in ordinary speech. What is said in that 
more easily followed form — always provided a content 
of thought and feeling that seems worthy of it — pleases 
primitive man, as simple rhythms of all kinds please 
children. One needs considerable literary training to 
see an artistic form in prose, which is, as rhythm, so 
much more complex. This is like what has happened 
in music. Simple melody pleased first; perfect con- 
cords pleased earlier than the less perfect ; discords are 
not received into music till quite late; numerous acci- 
dentals and free modulations, mingling different keys, 
require for their appreciation a high degree of culture 
of the musical sense, such as only a fraction of the 
people even in the most musical nations have attained. 
In the study of music, and likewise in the study of 
rhythm in language, one naturally begins with the 
simpler. 

Another fundamental principle, implied in what pre- 
cedes but requiring distinct statement, is this. In study- 


ing specific language rhythms —I do not say in teaching 


the beginner, but in trying to ascertain their real char- 
acter — we must start from the larger group of words 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 93 


rather than from the syllable or the foot. This is merely 
applying in metric the principle which has been reached. 
by the student of phonetics generally and by students 
of syntax. In all alike the sentence, the Satz, the 
larger grouping, may be analyzed into smaller groups, 
— into words bearing certain syntactical relations to each 
other, or into feet, syllables, individual sounds, which 
last are also not simple. But alike in all three fields 
every smaller unit reached by analysis is much influenced 
by its surroundings; other surroundings may transform 
it; these must therefore in each instance be all duly 
taken into account. The moment you isolate the smaller 
unit and consider it without reference to collocation, 
you are treating a variable as a constant. That is a 
frequent source of error in a good many fields. A 
problem solved by the aid of that assumption is not 
solved, in metric any more than in mathematics. To 
understand the nature of the smaller metrical units we 
must watch them im Werden, observing first, as we have 
been doing, how the voice deals with the larger group 
of words, and secondly, what the composer does who 
combines words with the aim of producing a particular 
rhythmical pattern. Let us look at the matter a mo- 
ment from the latter side. 

Negatively, we must not conceive that process as one 
of addition, in which the lower units, whatever elements 
the larger group when analyzed is found to contain, are 
taken like so many bricks or stones already shaped, and 
built up into the larger structure. The process is rather 
to be compared — except in rapidity, where the difference 
is immense — to the growth of a plant, in which the 
vital force pervades every part, and all the parts, larger 
and smaller, adjust themselves to each other in a living 
and organic relation. This is true of music and the 





94 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


dance no less than of poetry; but we will look only at 
the last. All poets who have given us any account of 
their experience in the act of poetic creation agree on 
this point. Not the single sound, nor the syllable, nor 
even the word is to their feeling the unit; but the phrase, 
the line, the whole poem. I lustrations might be multi- 
plied; two will suttice. Lowell in his letters describes 
the writing of his masterpiece, the Commemoration Ode. 
“The ode itself,” he wrote to Mr. Gilder, ‘ was an im- 
provisation. Two days before the Commemoration I 
had told my friend Child that it was impossible — that I 
was dull as a door-mat. But the next day something 
gave me a jog and the whole thing came out of me with 
a rush. I sat up all night writing it out clear, and 1 
took it on the morning of the day to Child.” Again 
to T. W. Higginson, “I was longer getting the new 
(eleventh) strophe to my mind than in writing the rest 
of the poem. In that I hardly changed a word, and it 
was so undeliberate that I did not find out till after it 
was printed that some of the verses lacked corresponding 
rhymes.” The poem as delivered was over four hundred 
lines long, in complicated and changing meter. O. W. 
Holmes also in his Autocrat at the Breakfast Table com- 
pares the conceiving a lyric poem to being hit by a bullet 
in the forehead. Many people who lay no claim to 
genius have had experiences resembling these nearly 
enough to understand such accounts perfectly. Ribot 
in a recent article on The Nature of the Creative Im- 
agination (International Monthly, July, 1900) devotes 
some pages to the psychology of such inspiration, em- 
phasizing the suddenness and also the impersonal, uncon- 
scious, subterraneous aspect of it in its ordinary form. 
Isolation of the single syllable or word, and conscious 
calculation of its relative space in the pattern is wholly 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE 95 


absent. Single effects may indeed be altered by calcu- 
lated substitution of word or phrase; but even here what 
we have is still primarily and distinctly a reshaping of 
the larger unit — not a mechanical building up of syllable 
on syllable already shaped beyond the poet’s control be- 
fore he picks them out. Within certain limits they are 
unformed and plastic until fixed in a specific collocation, 
which then — speaking generally — admits without dis- 
tortion only one rhythm, that which the poet had in 
mind. 

Now holding fast this recognition of the fact that the 
poet’s mental action is so rapid and is largely below the 
level of consciousness, and that, dealing primarily with 
the larger group, he considers the single syllables only 
in their relation to that, we may describe in the follow- 
ing way the purely metrical side of what he does in 
composing English verse. He so selects and arranges 
words that the reader will find strongly stressed syllables 
coming naturally into the majority of the more promin- 
ent times of the desired rhythm,—or into enough of 
these to determine clearly how the other syllables are 
to make the rest of the pattern. The only essential 
feature of our word-accent is stress; other elements, 
like change of speech-tune, may be present or absent, 
and are variable; but removal of stress to another 
syllable is a change in accentuation. The stress accent 
in our words being very little under the arbitrary con- 
trol of the poet or of any individual, we say it is fixed. 
It could easily be proved by scores of examples that, as 
was said above, a degree of freedom is permitted even 
here that would surprise one who has not given attention 
to the question; but it is still true that the principal 
word-accents determine the majority of the more promin- 
ent time-intervals. That is a fuller and more detailed 


Ra be 50. ταν». μὰν, aa TI Ee TR Te ὑμινίωγος 





96 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


statement of what we mean, and of all that we ought to 
mean, in saying, as we do with truth, that English verse 
is based on word-accent. But in all this there is no 
place for the pernicious assumption that in English 
an accented syllable is long, the unaccented short. Only 
in a sense that is misleading, and has misled most writers 
on English metric, can those terms be treated as generally 
convertible or equivalent. Until that equation is defi- 
nitely discarded, clear notions of rhythm in English are 
practically impossible. At least one modern poet besides 
Lanier, namely Tennyson, recognized this distinctly ; 
and it would be difficult to find a poet possessing a 
keener insight into the principles of his own art. 

To indicate precisely what is properly meant by say- 
ing that Greek versification, in contrast with English, is 
based on quantity, the matter may be put thus. In 
English and German speech much is made of differences 
in stress, quite apart from versification. Some syllables 
are passed over so lightly that one may even doubt 
whether a separate syllable is formed or not, and usage 
may vary on the same syllable. Others are spoken 
always distinctly and forcibly; these by contrast appear 
very heavily stressed ; in most words of more than one 
syllable usage has settled which one shall receive the 
heaviest stress. Monosyllables pronounced alone all 
seem accented; in continuous discourse some are felt to 
be more significant and are more likely to receive a 
stress, others less important are likely to be passed 


over lightly. For rhetorical purposes also much use 18 
made of stress, which is heavier on the more emphasized 
word, lighter on the less important; thus stress is made 
to render part of the service in conveying meaning that 
in Greek or Latin was rendered by word-order. In these 
several ways all grades of variation in stress between the 


RHYTHM AND LANGUAGE ΟἿ 


two extremes are in constant use. To my ear modern 
Greek and Italian seem to make distinctly less use of it ; 
apparently different dialects vary a good deal in this 
regard, and of course no one doubts that those languages 
also employ it enough to be properly called accentual. 
In ancient Greek on the other hand stress had but a 
narrow field; it was at least as nearly level as in modern 
French, probably more so. Between word-order, parti- 
cles, and the pitch-accent, about all the functions of 
stress in English, leaving rhythm out of view, appear 
to have been fully supplied without stress. A stress so 
nearly level that speaker and listener were hardly con- 
scious of any variation could not play a leading part in 
determining rhythm. Shifting of the points of slightly 
heavier stress from one syllable to another, for any reason, 
could not cause any confusion or seem strange, —as 
with us variation of the speech-tune on the same word 
in different collocations does not seem to affect in the 
least the identity of the words, although in Greek it did, 
except in singing. Even in modern French a good deal 
of such shifting of stress, of which the Frenchman 
is perhaps not conscious, is noticed by the foreigner. 
When a Frenchman with a good command of English 
speaks it in some excitement, he is apt to treat our 
accents with the freedom of his own language, as rather 
variable, unless he has acquired with remarkable thor- 
oughness our peculiar intonations. On the other hand, 
as every Greek syllable (elision and the like apart) was 
pronounced with fairly equal precision, variations in 
quantity or quality of vowel or consonant, such as we 
admit freely in unstressed syllables, were of necessity 
less free. Without at least some variation in time of 
pronunciation of the separate elements rhythm was 


impossible; but the limits were narrower; in compari- 
7 





98 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


son with English, quantity may be said to have been 
fixed. The difference between “long” and “ short 
syllables was just about as distinct as in English be- 
tween accented and unaccented, and could no more be 
overlooked by the ordinary speaker. | 

A Greek, therefore, desiring to produce a particular 
χρόνων τάξις, so selected and arranged words that the 
reader would find long syllables coming naturally into 
the majority of the more prominent times, —or into 
enough of these to determine clearly the place of the 
other syllables in the arrangement, 7. ¢., how the other 
syllables should constitute the other times. The ques- 
tion whether any stress at all accompanied the more 
prominent times, which were marked by the down beat 
when one kept time by beating, I still postpone a little. 
Finally it should be noted that a very slight change in 
the relative prominence of stress in comparison with 
qualitative precision, in the utterance of groups of syl- 
lables, is enough to cause a language to shift from the 
accentual to the quantitative basis in rhythmization. It 
is therefore nothing surprising that the two systems 


ions side by side in late Latin and 
existed for generations side by side in late Lat 


Greek. 


IV 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 


By this gradual approach, from the side of rhythm in 
nature and in other activities of man, through rhythm 
in a typical living language, we have finally reached the 
central problem of Greek rhythm. The reader cannot 
but inquire whether this conception of rhythm is not 
inapplicable to Greek, because based too much on habits 
of speech purely modern, or at least not Greek. Was 
there any recognition of such ideas by the ancients them- 
selves? ΤῸ answer this requires examination of several 
passages from Aristoxenos and others; and a careful 
examination, because previous discussion of the same 
passages by the most competent scholars has in part 
issued in very diverse interpretation. Only some method 
of approach at least partially new, and implying wider 
comparison and induction, combined with more careful] 
scrutiny, affords any hope of advance. 

We have seen that Plato, Aristotle, and their suc- 
cessors were aware that rhythm has a large place in 
nature, though they could not realize so fully as we how 
large ; also that they did not overlook the natural bond 
of kinship uniting the various forms of rhythm in many 
human activities, whereof speech is one. But this is 
not enough. Have we evidence that competent ancient 
observers recognized in syllabic quantities the degree 
of elasticity assumed? And did their conception of 
rhythm in language admit such unbroken gradation from 
simple speech through artistic prose and spoken verse 





100 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METKIC 


to song? At least the former of these two questions, 
the fundamental one, has been generally answered in the 
negative. The reason for that appears to be that state- 
ments of the metrici, interpreted with a little twist 
because not taken in their true relation to other evi- 
dence, created a strong prepossession in favor of the hard 
and fast rule, long is to short as two to one. The other 
evidence was approached with that prepossession well 
settled; consequently statements of Aristoxenos that 
would otherwise have seemed sufficiently clear were 
explained away, or were taken with such restrictions that 
the real foree was obscured. It is necessary to put aside 
that prepossession ; to aid in clearing it away was part of 
the object of Chapter H, “ Rhythmicus or Metricus?” 

In that chapter (pp. 42-62) were quoted a series of 
passages differentiating ‘ rhythmi’ from ‘ metra,’ and de- 
claring that in ‘rhythmi ’ — that is, as we found, in 
more elaborate melic verse — the times of syllables were 
shortened and prolonged with great freedom, in disregard 
of the “metrical” rule of two to one; that rule prevailed 
onlv in the ‘metra’ or verses of the simpler type, which 
were destined for reading only,—or which at any rate 
preserved their proper rhythm in plain reading unadorned 
by πλάσμα. I see no admissible understanding of those 
paragraphs that does not include the conception of con- 
siderable elasticity of syllabic quantity, at least in lyric 
verse. Those texts, however, do not stand alone, but 
are supplemented by others that accord with them and 
state the matter more plainly. 

The very term ῥυθμιζόμενον, applied to the material 
or medium which embodies a χρόνων τάξις and makes 
it perceptible to one or more of our senses, of itself 
naturally suggests the same conception. Unless there 
is positive evidence to the contrary, he who employs 


“πῶ ο 0οὁἋὐ͵. 
; ᾿ ee MS eae Se wiki oo : me 


ageaial 


’ 





RHYTHM IN GREEK 101 


that present passive participle to denote λέξις, κίνησις 
σωματική, μέλος, and any other medium of rhythm, must 
be understood to mean that all alike are rhythmized, or 
submitted to a shaping force from without; that the 
ῥυθμοποιός shapes and puts into rhythm a material more 
or less plastic, or capable of being moulded. And Aris- 
toxenos explicitly says this in the following words: 

Nonréov δὲ δύο τινὰς φύσεις ταύτας, THY τε TOD ῥυθμοῦ 
καὶ τὴν τοῦ ῥυθμιζομένου, παραπλησίως ἐχούσας πρὸς 
ἀλλήλας ὥσπερ ἔχει τὸ σχῆμα καὶ τὸ σχηματιζόμενον 
πρὸς αὑτά. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα πλείους ἰδέας λαμβάνει 
σχημάτων, ἐὰν αὐτοῦ τὰ μέρη τεθῇ διαφερόντως, ἤτοι 
πάντα ἤ τινα αὐτῶν, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ῥυθμιζομένων ἕκαστον 
πλείους λαμβάνει μορφάς, οὐ κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ φύσιν, ἀλλὰ 
κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ. ἡ γὰρ αὐτὴ λέξις εἰς χρόνους τε- 
θεῖσα διαφέροντας ἀλλήλων λαμβάνει τινὰς διαφορὰς, 
τοιαύτας αἵ εἰσιν ἴσαι αὐταῖς τῆς τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ φύσεως δια- 
φοραῖς. ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλους καὶ εἴ τι 
ἄλλο πέφυκε ῥυθμίζεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ ῥυθμῷ ὅς ἐστιν ἐκ 
χρόνων συνεστηκώς. (P. 268, 270 Mor.) 

That is: “ We are to regard these as two natures, as 
it were, that of the rhythm and that of the rhythmized 
material, so related to each other as are the form and 
the material formed. Just as the body, for example, 
takes various shapes, if its parts are differently placed, 
either all or some of them, so too each of the ῥυθμιζόμενα 
takes various forms, not by virtue of its own nature but 
by virtue of that of rhythm. For example, the same 
group of syllables, when put into different time-intervals, 
takes on certain differences, such as are equal to differ- 
ences which in themselves belong to the nature of the 
rhythm. The same statement holds also in the case of 
a melody, and of anything else that is capable of rhyth- 
mization by such a rhythm as consists of times.” 





102 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


The last phrase is added to exclude other senses of 
ῥυθμός discussed in the previous book, particularly the 
application to objects without motion. I do not see how 
the doctrine in question could be stated more clearly. 
Observe first the nature of his illustration. There is no 
hint that σῶμα is to be taken in any other than its ordi- 
nary sense. The human body takes an infinite variety of 
shapes or postures, as the limbs, neck, shoulders, trunk, 
are differently bent, extended, contracted. There are 
strict limits of height, breadth, and so on; the weight 
remains the same; but within those limits the dimen- 
sions are varied at will. This is in the realm of space. 
So of each ῥυθμιζόμενον in the realm of time. And 
luckily the ῥυθμιζόμενον to which he now specifically 
apples the doctrine is language. The same word or 
group of words may be put by the ῥυθμοποιός into dif- 
ferent time-intervals, whose differences are inherent in 
the different rhythms, not in the words. The particular 
rhythm is conceived asa mould or pattern to which a 
pliable material is made to conform; the pattern exists 
in the mind of the ῥυθμοποιός. and receives objective 
audible existence only by embodiment in a ῥυθμιζόμενον. 
Examples of syllabic groups variously rhythmized are 
easily found. The phrase ᾿Αχιλλέως παῖ begins an iam- 
bic trimeter in Soph., Phil. 50; in 57 the same words are 
embedded in the line, thus: 


/ / ~ \ ’ 
λέγειν, ᾿Αχιλλέως παῖς " Tod’ οὐχὶ κλεπτέον. 


The two rhythmical values of the phrase are (using -- 
to indicate an irrational syllable) vp — u—~ > and u_ > _. 
Again, Theognis begins a dactylic hexameter with the 
words εὐχομένῳ μοι κλῦθι: he has also the elegiac penta- 
meter 


ἀείσω" ov δέ μοι κλῦθι Kal ἐσθλὰ δίδου. 











RHYTHM IN GREEK 103 


The words por κλῦθι have the two values ——v and 
u—v. Again, the word αὐτῷ would ordinarily have in 
the hexameter the value — —, or before a vowel — v; in 
iambie trimeter the value might be >— or —>; in 
Aisch., Ag. 170 f. 


ad “a / f 
Ζεὺς ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἐστίν, εἰ τόδ᾽ αὐτῷ φίλον κεκλημένῳ 


the value is \—. Such examples are plenty enough. 
In each case it is the neighboring syllables that show 
which of the possible values was intended by the poet. 
It is strange that the plain meaning of εἰς χρόνους τεθεῖσα 
διαφέροντας is not accepted in full by Westphal (Gr. 
Rhythmik, p. 70). He translates τεθεῖσα zerlegt, and 
selects for an example the phrase €@aves ἀπελύθης, which 
can be differently divided as trochaic, iambic, anapestic, 
dochmiae, with no alteration of relative times for the 
syllables, except that the final syllable in the iambic form 
is irrational. Yet as parallel examples of μέλος he cites 
musical phrases in which the same pitch intervals are 
employed, but with differences between the time-ratios. 
These musical examples conform exactly to the meaning 
of Aristoxenos; only in the case of λέξις does Westphal 
refuse to admit that meaning, because on other (and 
mistaken) grounds he had decided that syllables were 
not thus elastic. This is not the only instance where 
Westphal, carrying through with strict logic a precon- 
ceived belief, has misinterpreted the author to whom he 
devoted his life, and for our understanding of whom he 
has done more than any other man. The paragraphs 
that follow the above in the ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα enlarge 
upon and carry out into some details the same concep- 
tion of syllabic quantities. Thus it is affirmed that the 
rhythm is οὐδενὶ τῶν ῥυθμιζομένων τὸ αὐτό, ἀλλὰ τῶν 
διατιθέντων πως τὸ ῥυθμιζόμενον καὶ ποιούντων κατὰ τοὺς 





104 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


χρόνους τοιόνδε ἢ τοιόνδε. (ILS ὃ W.) In διατιθέντων πως 
alone there might be ambiguity; but none is left when 
it is added that the rhythm “makes the rhythmized 
material of this or that character as regards its time- 
intervals.” Farther at the end of ὃ 8: τοιοῦτον νοητέον τὸ 
ῥυθμιξόμενον οἷον δύνασθαι μετατίθεσθαι εἰς χρόνων μεγέ- 
θη παντοδαπὰ καὶ εἰς ξυνθέσεις παντοδαπάς. Capability 
of very various rhythmization is affirmed of all ῥυθ- 
μιζόμενα. 

The distinction between ῥυθμός and ῥυθμοποιία points 
the same way; it isset forth in the following paragraphs 
of the ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα. 

(1) “Ὅτι δ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐ τὸ αὐτὸ ῥυθμοποιία τε καὶ ῥυθμός, 
σαφὲς μὲν οὔπω ῥάδιον ἐστι ποιῆσαι, πιστευέσθω δὲ διὰ 
τῆς ῥηθησομένης ὁμοιότητος. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν TH τοῦ μέλους 
φύσει τεθεωρήκαμεν. ὅτι οὐ τὸ αὐτὸ σύστημά τε καὶ μελο- 
ποιία, οὐδὲ τόνος, οὐδὲ γένος, οὐδὲ μεταβολή, οὕτως ὑπο- 
ληπτέον ἔχειν καὶ περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμούς τε καὶ ῥυθμοποιίας, 
ἐπειδήπερ τοῦ μέλους χρῆσίν τινα τὴν μελοποιίαν εὕρομεν 
οὖσαν. ἐπί τε τῆς ῥυθμικῆς πραγματείας τὴν ῥυθμοποιίαν 
ὡσαύτως χρῆσίν τινά φαμεν εἶναι. σαφέστερον δὲ τοῦτο 
εἰσόμεθα προελθούσης τῆς πραγματείας. (P. 282 f. Mor.; 
II § 13 W.) 

(2) Δεῖ δὲ μὴ διαμαρτεῖν ἐν τοῖς νῦν εἰρημένοις, ὑπολαμ- 
βάνοντας μὴ μερίζεσθαι πόδα εἰς πλείω τῶν τεττάρων 
ἀριθμόν μερίζονται γὰρ ἔνιοι τῶν ποδῶν εἰς διπλάσιον 
τοῦ εἰρημένου πλήθους ἀριθμὸν καὶ εἰς πολλαπλάσιον. 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ὁ ποὺς εἰς τὸ πλέον τοῦ εἰρημένου 
πλήθους μερίζεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας διαιρεῖται 
τὰς τοιαύτας διαιρέσεις. νοητέον δὲ χωρὶς τά τε τὴν τοῦ 
ποδὸς δύναμιν φυλάσσοντα σημεῖα καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυθ- 
μοποιίας γινομένας διαιρέσεις" καὶ προσθετέον δὲ τοῖς 
εἰρημένοις. ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἐκάστου ποδὸς σημεῖα διαμένει ἴσα 


ὄντα καὶ τῷ ἀριθμῷ καὶ τῷ μεγέθει, αἱ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυθμο- 
ὑ TO apl Ko a ‘ μ γ 5 7 ) Ρρ 























RHYTHM IN GREEK 105 


ποιίας γινόμεναι διαιρέσεις πολλὴν λαμβάνουσι ποικιλίαν. 
ἔσται δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔπειτα φανερόν. (P. 290. 
Mor.; II § 19 W.) 

(3) Τῶν δὲ χρόνων οἱ μέν εἰσι ποδικοί, οἱ δὲ τῆς ῥυθμο- 
ποιίας ἴδιοι. ποδικὸς μὲν οὖν ἐστι χρόνος ὁ κατέχων σημεί- 
ov ποδικοῦ μέγεθος, οἷον ἄρσεως ἢ βάσεως, ἢ ὅλου ποδός. 
ἴδιος δὲ ῥυθμοποιίας ὁ παραλλάσσων ταῦτα τὰ μεγέθη 
εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ μικρὸν εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ μέγα. καὶ ἔστι ῥυθμὸς μὲν 
ὥσπερ εἴρηται σύστημά τι συγκείμενον ἐκ τῶν ποδικῶν 
χρόνων ὧν ὁ μὲν ἄρσεως, ὁ δὲ βάσεως, ὁ δὲ ὅλου ποδός" 
ῥυθμοποιία δ᾽ ἂν εἴη τὸ συγκείμενον ἔκ τε τῶν ποδικῶν 
χρόνων καὶ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῆς τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἰδίων. (Frag. 
Psell. 8.) 

The above may be translated thus. “That ῥυθμοποιία 
is not the same thing as rhythm it is not easy to make 
clear as yet, but let the following comparison induce 
belief. As in the nature of music we have observed 
that σύστημα is not the same as μελοποιία, nor yet τόνος 
nor γένος nor μεταβολή, so also you are to understand in 
regard to rhythm and ῥυθμοποιία ; since we found that 
μελοποιία is a particular treatment or concrete example 
of tune, and in the discussion of rhythmic we say in like 
manner that ῥυθμοποιία is a particular treatment or con- 
crete example of rhythm.” 

“ But you must avoid going astray in the statements 
just made, by supposing that a foot is not divided into 
a greater number of parts than four. For some of the 
feet are in fact divided into twice that number of parts 
and into several times as many. Not in itself, however, 
is the foot divided into more than the aforesaid number 
of parts, but such divisions are produced by the ῥυθμο- 
mola. We must consider as distinct the σημεῖα that 
preserve the character and significance of the foot and 
those divisions that are produced by the ῥυθμοποιία. 





106 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


And it must be added to the foregoing that the σημεῖα 
of each foot continue the same, equal in number and 
magnitude, while the divisions produced by the ῥυθμο- 
ποιία admit great diversity. This will be plain as we 
go on.” 

“Of the time-intervals some are characteristic of the 
foot, others peculiar to the ῥυθμοποιία. A foot-time 15 
one that retains the magnitude of a σημεῖον of the foot, 
as of arsis or thesis or a whole foot; a time peculiar to 
the ῥυθμοποιία is one that changes these magnitudes, 
whether in the way of diminution or of increase (or, 
that varies from those magnitudes more or less). And 
rhythm, as has been said, is a system made up of foot- 
times, one of which is that of the arsis, another that of 
the thesis, another that of the whole foot; while a ῥυθ- 
μοποιία (i. ε., ἃ concrete specimen) would be that which 
is made up of both the foot-times and those peculiar to 
the ῥυθμοποιία itself.” 

With these may be put a passage from the Harmonica. 
Aristoxenos has been explaining that one must in the 
study of music accustom oneself to judge accurately by 
hearing, and the more so because the study has to do in 
part with magnitudes, that is pitch-intervals, that are 
not constant. Emphasizing and illustrating the change- 
able character of some of those magnitudes, he says 
(p. 34 Mb.): 

Πάλιν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς πολλὰ τοιαῦθ᾽ ὁρῶμεν 
γιγνόμενα " καὶ γὰρ μένοντος τοῦ λόγου καθ᾽ ὃν διώρισται 
τὰ γένη τὰ μεγέθη κινεῖται τῶν ποδῶν διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀγωγῆς 
δύναμιν, καὶ τῶν μεγεθῶν μενόντων ἀνόμοιοι γίγνονται οἱ 
πόδες " καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ μέγεθος πόδα τε δύναται καὶ συζυγίαν" 
δῆλον δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ αἱ τῶν διαιρέσεων τε καὶ σχημάτων δια- 
φοραὶ περὶ μένον τι μέγεθος γίγνονται. καθόλου δ᾽ εἰπεῖν 


ἡ μὲν ῥυθμοποιία πολλὰς καὶ παντοδαπὰς κινεῖται, οἱ δὲ 





RHYTHM IN GREEK 107 


πόδες οἷς σημαινόμεθα τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς ἁπλᾶς τε Kal τὰς 
αὐτὰς ἀεί. 

In English: “ Again in dealing with rhythms we see 
many such phenomena. While for instance the ratio 
remains the same, by which the classes of rhythm are 
determined, the magnitudes of the feet are changed by 
the effect of the tempo; and again the feet are rendered 
unlike while magnitudes remain the same, so that the 
same magnitude equals now a foot now a dipody; evi- 
dently in that case the differences in the divisions and 
the forms are made in connection with a magnitude 
that is constant. And in general ῥυθμοποιία under- 
goes many changes of various kinds, while the feet by 
which we mark for ourselves the character of the 
rhythms admit only changes that are simple and always 
the same.” 

These sentences need little farther elucidation. Aris- 
toxenos conceived of each particular sort of rhythm as 
consisting of feet of the appropriate kinds, admitting, 
as distinct feet, only a limited number of changes. For 
example, dactylic rhythm in the abstract contains only 
dactyls varied to spondees, which introduce no new 
χρόνοι ποδικοί; and in the hexameter no other times, pe- 
culiar to the ῥυθμοποιία, are admitted. Iambic rhythm 
in the abstract contains only iambi, varied to tribrachs, 
of which the χρόνοι ποδικοί are those of arsis, thesis and 
whole foot, in the ratio of 1, 2,3; the iambus contains 
the times 1+2=8, the tribrachs the times 1+1+1=3. 
But in actual ῥυθμοποιία in the iambic class the lyric 
poets introduced many variations, producing a rather 
large set of times peculiar to the ῥυθμοποιία. Thus in 
place of ὦ -- might appear UL, in which a thesis and 


Cf. Westphal, Gr. Rhythmik, pp. 119-130. 





108 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


following arsis unite into one χρόνος that oversteps the 
boundary of the foot as they conceived it; in place of 
vu—v—v might appear viv. These and many other 
variations from the theoretical forms (by which never- 
theless the fundamental character of the movement is de- 
termined) are part of a rhythmizing process that moulds 
a plastic material; the simple adding together of long 
and short syllables, in the ratio of two to one, cannot 
produce such combinations. The result is that in ῥυθμο- 
ποιία the divisions are in truth often manifold, and the 
πόδες σύνθετοι of Aristoxenos might be divided into 
several times four parts, while the simple feet in their 
theoretical form, which the conductor followed in his 
beating (as the modern conductor does), and which ran 
along in the mind of the musician as the skeleton pattern 
underlying the complicated ρυθμοποιία, contained but 
two, three, or four χρόνοι ποδικοί. The whole ῥυθμο- 
ποιία as a concrete thing would thus in fact be a com- 
pound made up of the χρόνοι ποδικοί and those peculiar 
to the ῥυθμοποιία. Those verses which the metricians 
called ‘rhythmi’ in the passages quoted above (p. 42- 
52) were examples of this, in contrast with the ‘ metra,’ 
which contained little, many of them nothing, outside 
of the χρόνοι ποδικοί. To us this separate treatment 
of the two systems of times, those of the ῥυθμός and 
those of the ῥυθμοποιία." seems at first rather strange, 
perhaps more obfuscating than clarifying; Aristoxenos 
found, as we have seen, that it struck his listeners and 
readers in the same way. In reality the χρόνοι τῆς 


ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι are as normal as the χρόνοι ποδικοί, 


1 The new fragments published by Grenfell and Hunt (Oxyrhynchus 
Papyri, Pt. I, pp. 14-21) appear to be from a section on ῥυθμοποιία, and 
from the second chapter of it, that on χρῆσις. Compare Aristid. Q., 
p. 42 Mb. 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 109 


and stand on the same level with them. Both alike 
arise naturally in the rhythmizing process, and the still 
more intricate time-intervals of prose are no less legiti- 
mate and natural. But there can be no doubt what the 
idea of Aristoxenos was. And as a solid basis for the 
distinction remains the fact that in any given poetic or 
musical rhythm the fundamental character of the move- 
ment was really defined by the χρόνοι ποδικοί. Enough 
of these had to appear in their proper order to make a 
distinct impression of their character; else the whole 
seemed to have too little regularity for verse or music. 
The only method of treatment by which the two systems 
of times could be put on the same level and treated 
together was not invented till centuries later. The times 
employed in ancient music could all be described and 
noted accurately enough by the method of Aristoxenos, 
if not always so simply as might be wished. But when 
in its further development the rhythm of instrumental 
music became much more intricate still, the old theory 
of the foot as determined by the ratio between arsis and 
thesis, either of which might stand first, was found quite 
inadequate; the modern theory of the measure, as deter- 
mined by the number of beats and always beginning 
with a down beat, inevitably resulted. But we are not 
to disdain Aristoxenos for not discovering a method that 
his contemporaries would have thought still stranger and 
less acceptable than the one he followed. His method 
is intelligible, and is perfectly sound within its own 
sphere, however different from ours; and it contains 
such unmistakable recognition of elasticity in syllabic 
quantities that one cannot but wonder that this has been 
so little regarded. 


So too of the doctrine of ἀλογία, which Aristoxenos 
thus describes: 





110 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Ὥρισται δὲ τῶν ποδῶν ἕκαστος ἤτοι λόγῳ τινὶ ἢ ἀλο- 


γίᾳ τοιαύτη, ἥτις δύο λόγων γνωρίμων τὴ αἰσθήσει ἀνὰ 


μέσον ἔσται. γένοιτο δ᾽ ἂν τὸ εἰρημένον ὧδε καταφανές " 
εἰ ληφθείησαν δύο πόδες, ὁ μὲν ἴσον τὸ ἄνω τῷ κάτω ἔχων 
καὶ δίσημον ἑκάτερον, ὁ δὲ τὸ μὲν κάτω δίσημον, τὸ δὲ ἄνω 
ἥμισυ, τρίτος δέ τις ληφθείη ποὺς παρὰ τούτους, τὴν μὲν 
βάσιν ἴσην αὖ τοῖς ἀμφοτέροις ἔχων, τὴν δὲ ἄρσιν μέσον 
μέγεθος ἔχουσαν τῶν ἄρσεων. ὁ γὰρ τοιοῦτος ποὺς ἄλογον 
μὲν ἕξει τὸ ἄνω πρὸς τὸ κάτω" ἔσται δ᾽ ἡ ἀλογία μεταξὺ 
δύο λόγων γνωρίμων τῇ αἰσθήσει, τοῦ τε ἴσου καὶ τοῦ 
διπλασίου. καλεῖται δ᾽ οὗτος χορεῖος ἄλογος. (P. 292 f. 
Mor.; Π § 20 W.) 

That is: ‘* Each of the feet is determined and defined 
either by a precise ratio or by an incommensurable ratio 
such that it will be between two ratios recognizable by 
the sense. What is meant may be made clear thus. 
First take two feet, one having the time of the up-beat 


equal to that of the down-beat, and each two-timed, the: 


other having the down-beat two-timed and the up-beat 
half that. Then put beside these a third foot having 
the down-beat equal to the other two, but the arsis of a 
length between the other arses. The foot so described 
will have the up-beat irrational or incommensurable with 
reference to the down-beat; and the incommensurable 
ratio will be between two ratios that the sense distin- 
guishes, namely 2:2 and 2:1. This foot is called an 
irrational choree.” To guard against misunderstanding, 
Aristoxenos proceeds to point out analogies in the theory 
of pitch-intervals; but to make his comparison useful 
here would require too long and technical an explanation 
of that theory also. The point is that there also are 
certain intervals which, even though perhaps expressible 
by fractions, such as one-twelfth, and therefore κατὰ τοὺς 
τῶν ἀριθμῶν μόνον λόγους ῥητά, are yet not employed in 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 111 


music and are not recognized by the sense as rational. 
To μὲν οὖν ἐν ῥυθμῷ λαμβανόμενον ῥητὸν χρόνου μέγεθος 
πρῶτον μὲν δεῖ τῶν πιπτόντων εἰς τὴν ῥυθμοποιίαν εἶναι, 
ἔπειτα τοῦ ποδὸς ἐν ᾧ τέτακται μέρος εἶναι ῥητόν. . .. 
φανερὸν δὲ διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι ἡ μέση ληφθεῖσα τῶν 
ἄρσεων οὐκ ἔσται σύμμετρος τῇ βάσει" οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν 
μέτρον ἐστὶ κοινὸν ἔνρυθμον. ““ Accordingly ἃ time- 
interval that is taken as rational in rhythm must in the 
first place be one of those that fit into rhythmical com- 
position, secondly it must be a rational fraction of the 
foot in which it is placed. . . . But it is clear from the 
foregoing that the arsis assumed, between the other arses 
in extent, will not be commensurable with the thesis; 
for they have no common measure that is employed in 
rhythm.” 

Westphal (Gr. Rhythmik, p. 131 ff.) takes ava μέσον 
and μεταξύ to mean just half-way between, and gives for 
the irrational choree the ratio 2:1}. That assumption 
is not supported by the general use of the words μεταξύ 
and μέσος, nor by the context here. The common mean- 
ing of both words is simply between, somewhere between 
boundaries named or implied; if a greater precision was 
desired, some precisely defining word or phrase had to 
be added. Moreover, Westphal’s interpretation is incon- 
sistent with other statements of Aristoxenos. For the 
ratio thus obtained is ῥητός, not an ἀλογία, for it is 
simply the λόγος ἐπίτριτος, or 4: 8. And that according 
to Aristoxenos is one of the ratios admitted in ῥυθμο- 
ποιία; for though he admits in συνεχῆ or continuous 
ῥυθμοποιία only the dactylic, iambic, and paionic, yet he 
expressly says, γίνεται δέ ποτε ποὺς καὶ ἐν τριπλασίῳ 
λόγῳ, γίνεται δέ καὶ ἐν ἐπιτρίτᾳ (Frag. ap. Psell. 9, p. 
85 W.). Therefore the ratio 2 : 11. is certainly ἃ λόγος 
ῥητός, and hence cannot be what Aristoxenos intended 





112 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


by ἀλογία. The ordinary meaning of ἀνὰ μέσον and 
μεταξύ is the only one admissible. An irrational foot 
was one in which the ratio between arsis and thesis was 
not expressible in small whole numbers and was not 
measured by the ear exactly, though it was recognized 
as being between the ratios 2: 2 and 2:1 (possibly also 
between 2: 2 and 2:8). Those simple ratios are readily 
distinguished by the ear, which can also affirm with 
certainty that a third ratio lies between them, without 
being able or caring to measure it more exactly. Such 
an indeterminate ratio between arsis and thesis con- 
stituted a ποὺς ἄλογος ; a syllable thus breaking away 
from the ordinary precise numerical relation to its neigh- 


bors was ἄλογος. 

But whether this or Westphal’s understanding of the 
matter be accepted, the existence of irrational feet in 
either sense implies elasticity of syllabic quantity. An 
irrational syllable arises from the compression of a> 
“long” syllable or the prolongation of a “short.” A 
syllable which in one connection is two-timed becomes 


in another irrational; or else a syllable which in one con- 
nection is one-timed becomes in another irrational. A 
new collocation leads one to make the change, which 
the reader recognizes from the collocation alone. ‘This 
is substantially what happens in English verse. In the 
lines, 

The curfew tolls the knell of parting day, 

The lowing herd winds slowly o’er the lea, 


the arsis winds, and in a slightly less degree -few, are 
such that they do not allow compression to the shortest 
χρόνος ποδικός, that of such arses as the in any of its 
four occurrences. In other collocations either of them 
might be a full two-timed syllable ; winds would admit 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 118 


as great protraction as any syllable in the language. 
But here both are naturally spoken as something be- 
tween one-timed and two-timed. Just what their time 
is, between those two limits, the rhythmic sense cannot 
determine and does not care; they are felt as retarding 
the time a little, thereby effecting a pleasant relief from 
the dull monotony of an arithmetical precision. They 
are ἄλογοι in the Aristoxenean sense. 

That considerable class of syllables known as common 
are a still more familiar illustration of the same princi- 
ple of rhythmization, —an illustration so conspicuous 
and so frequently recurring that even the metrici could 
not overlook it. For what is a common syllable but one 
that may at will be made long or short? It is to be 
remembered also that this class of common syllables 
includes many besides those in which a vowel naturally 
short is followed by a mute and liquid, of which the 
former may be placed now in one syllable now in the 
other. That explanation of the variable quantity can 
at best account for but a part of the cases. Partial 
loss of quantity in hiatus is another familiar change 
closely related to the variability of common syllables. 

We have thus reviewed a series of phenomena 
described by Aristoxenos and others, the reality of which 
in Greek versification is beyond question. It does not 
seem to have occurred to any ancient observer to group 
them together under one principle. Yet plainly all are 
but different manifestations of a single force no less active 
in Greek and Latin speech than in our own, if we will 
look beneath the surface and see the real unity under 
external variety. The impulse to rhythmize, which acts 
on so many other materials, acted constantly in the 
speakers of Greek; it led them to put each combination 
of words, taken in larger groups, into as good a rhythm 

8 








114 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


as the material, all things considered, would allow. This 
impulse alone would suffice to keep spoken syllables of 
a living tongue more or less flexible. An interesting 
suggestion of this view of the matter, if nothing more 
than a suggestion, is preserved in the definition of ‘ ver- 
sus’ attributed to Varro (in Marius Vict., p. 50 K.). 
Versus, ut Varroni placet, verborum iunctura, que per 
articulos et commata et rhythmos modulatur in pedes. 
One is tempted on the basis of this to believe that Aris- 
toxenos somewhere recognized this view even more dis- 
tinctly than in the fragments known to us. 

What then is really meant when certain syllab 


long 


| 
called long and certain others are called short? A 


ΟΝ are 
5 | 


svllable in Greek is one that does not admit suticient 
compression to represent the χρόνος πρῶτος unequivo- 
cally. If by exception it occupies a position where the 
exact rhythmic pattern (ῥυθμός in Aristoxenos’s nar- 
rower sense) leads us to expect a syllable that shall have 
only the time of the χρόνος πρῶτος, a long syllable 
retards the movement a little; it produces a time-inter- 
val, variable with circumstances, but in general incom- 
mensurable with the others, or ἄλογος. In the earliest 
period, and always in the most widely used verse, 
the dactylic hexameter, no long syllable is allowed 
to occupy such a position. In many kinds of verse a 
long was often allowed, within certain restrictions, to 
stand in place of a χρόνος πρῶτος. but with an effect of 
retardation; while it could fill a δίσημος χρόνος, or a 
three-timed or four-timed, with no suggestion of inade- 
quacy. Thus a long syllable, if we take as a standard its 
most common length of two times, is capable of consider- 
able extension but of only slight compression. <A short 
syllable on the other hand cannot filla δίσημος χρόνος 
unequivocally. If asked to do so, as it apparently was 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 115 


occasionally in some meters, there was a slight inade- 
quacy, a little hastening of the time. But it might in 
some circumstances be crowded into less than the χρόνος 
πρῶτος, two short syllables together having somewhat 
the effect of a long syllable in like position. A more 
detailed examination of such cases belongs elsewhere. 

We have still to consider the relation between verse 
and prose, and must include in this examination another 
side than the rhythmical. For Westphal has so empha- 
sized and insisted upon a marked difference between 
* and that difference has 
been so widely adopted as proved, that we must follow 
the course of his argument closely enough to see where 
and why he erred. 

The Allgemeine Theorie d. gr. Metrik begins with a 
translation and discussion of the remarks of Aristoxe- 
nos on the difference in movement of the speaking and 


gesagter and gesungener Vers, 


the singing voice.2 These remarks are combined erro- 
neously with Frag. 6 in Psellos, perhaps from the first 
book of the Elements of Rhythm, so as to derive 
therefrom the conclusion that Aristoxenos made a sharp 
distinction between spoken verse and song as regards 
rhythm. This conclusion is then strengthened by an 
unwarrantable application of Dionysios Hal., De Comp. 
Verb. 17 and 20. We will take up only so much of this 
as is necessary for the purpose of finding and avoiding 
the error, and will begin with the Psellos fragment 6, 
which reads: 


1 Gr. Rhythmik, p. 42 ff.,and Aristoxenos, I. p. 220ff. Westphal 
and Gleditsch, Gr. Metrik, pp. 1-21. 

2 This topic has been gone over with great lucidity by Dr. C. W. L. 
Johnson, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. for 1899, Vol. XXX, pp. 42-55, who 
however confines himself strictly to exposition of the musical side, 
scarcely touching the rhythmical problem. 





116 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Τῶν δὲ ῥυθμιζομένων ἕκαστον οὔτε κινεῖται συνεχῶς 
οὔτε ἠρεμεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐναλλάξ. καὶ τὴν μὲν ἠρεμίαν σημαίνει 
τό τε σχῆμα καὶ ὁ φϑόγγος καὶ ἡ συλλαβὴή. οὐδενὸς γὰρ 
τούτων ἔστιν αἰσθέσθαι ἄνευ τοῦ ἠρεμῆσαι" τὴν δὲ κίνησιν 
ἡ μετάβασις ἡ ἀπὸ σχήματος ἐπὶ σχῆμα, καὶ ἡ ἀπὸ φθόγ- 
γου ἐπὶ φθόγγον, καὶ ἡ ἀπὸ συλλαβῆς ἐπὶ συλλαβήν. 
εἰσὶ δὲ of μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἠρεμιῶν κατεχόμενοι χρόνοι γνώρι- 
μοι, οἱ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν κινήσεων ἄγνωστοι διὰ σμικρότητα 
ὥσπερ ὅροι τινὲς ὄντες τῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἠρεμιῶν κατεχομένων 
χρόνων. νοητέον δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ὅτι τῶν ῥυθμικῶν συστημά- 
των ἕκαστον οὐχ ὁμοίως σύγκειται ἔκ τε τῶν γνωρίμων 
χρόνων κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀγνώστων, αλλ ἐκ μὲν 
τῶν γνωρίμων κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν ὡς ἐκ μερῶν τινῶν σϑηανται 
τὰ συστήματα, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀγνώστων ὡς ἐκ τῶν διοριζόντων 
τοὺς γνωρίμους κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν χρόνους. | | 

That is: “Each of the ῥυθμιζόμενα is neither in 
motion nor at rest continuously, but is both by turns. 
The period of rest is marked by the bodily position, the 
musical note, and the syllable, for no one of these can be 


perceived without the cessation of motion; the period of 
motion is marked by the transition from position to 
position, from note to note, and from syllable to syllable. 
The times occupied by the periods of rest are determin- 
able, while the periods of motion are not determinable, 
because of brevity, serving as boundaries, aS it were, to 


the times occupied by periods of rest. This too should 
be observed, that each of the systems of rhythm consists 
both of the times whose length is determinate and of 
those whose length is indeterminate, but not in like 
manner: the combinations consist of the known quanti- 
ties as constituent parts and of the unknown quantities 
as separating and bounding the known.” 

The terms γνώριμος and ἄγνωστος are not easy to 
translate consistently, though their meaning is clear, 





RHYTHM IN GREEK 117 


and is not obscured, I hope, by the above rendering. It 
is evident that κενέω and κίνησις have a broader applica- 
tion than our words ‘ move’ and ‘motion’ and that ἠρεμία 
too receives a technical sense. The transition from one 
bodily position to another in the dance, that from one 
note to another in music, and that from one syllable to 
another in language, are so far analogous that all alike 
are called motion. In contrast with them the continu- 
ance in one bodily position, the remaining on one musi- 
cal note, and the remaining within the limits of one 
syllable, are called rest, —not absence of sound, but 
absence of motion. To us the term rest appears least 
fitting in the case of syllables. It is entirely fitting in 
the case of the dance and not far-fetched when applied to 
musical tone. It must be granted that the application 
to syllables would seem to us easier if syllables in song 
alone were intended, as Westphal affirms. But against 
that assumption it must be said first that the passage 
contains no hint of such a restriction. There is nothing 
to suggest that the triad here thought of is any other 
than the familiar one of κίνησις σωματική, μέλος, λέξις, 
each in its fullest extent. Westphal introduced the 
restriction of λέξις here because he thought the other 
passage, to be considered later, required it. Again, if 
syllable did here refer only to the syllable as sung, the 
third case mentioned would be practically identical with 
the second. Syllable and note coincided in singing, 
except when two notes of different pitch were put for 
one long syllable. But this no more called for separate 
mention in so summary an account than did, under the 
second head, two successive notes of instrumental music 
on the same pitch, yet divided by an interruption, 
though this is another kind of μετάβασις than that from 
one pitch to a higher or lower. The transition from one 





118 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


instrumental note to another on the same pitch is surely 
not excluded under the second head, for a rhythmic divi- 
sion is heard then as truly as when the pitch changes. 
And the mere difference of musical instrument, as 
between lyre or flute and voice, no more called for a 
separate clause than the difference between lyre and 
flute under the second case. In fact, a Greek could 
hardly fail — unless especially warned, as he is not here 
—to include sung syllables under φθόγγοι. which was 
applied primarily to language. This would strongly 
incline him to understand συλλαβή of the spoken syl- 
lable primarily. And finally, this figurative use of the 
term rest for the period of duration of any syllable, 
spoken or sung, is made perfectly intelligible by the 


analogy with the two preceding cases, of bodily move- 


ment and of musical notes, and by the contrast with the 
μετάβασις or transition. That passage from one syllable 
to the next, naturally enough called κίνησις from analogy 
with the other two ῥυθμιζόμενα, fully justifies the term 
ἠρεμία for the time of the syllable itself. Aristoxenos 
is aiming here, as often elsewhere, to bring out the 
essential identity of rhythm, and the close likeness 
between the manifestations of it, in all three arts, 
dance, music, poetry. Our better acquaintance with 
the physics of sound and articulation may make the 
transfer of terms appear more-strained than it appeared 
to him; but we must avoid judging his phraseology, 
when our object is to understand it, by a criterion 
created by knowledge that he could not have. 

In all three arts, then, Aristoxenos considers the con- 
crete rhythm as made up of the periods of ἠρεμία plus 
the periods of κίνησις or transition from one ἠρεμία to 
another. Both rest and motion, in this context, are 
periods of time, only differently occupied. But the 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 119 


periods of rest are alone regarded by the sense as con- 
stituting the times of the rhythm; the transitions are 
rapid and brief, the rhythmic sense does not measure 
their time independently, but takes them merely as 
minute periods of separation between the ἠρεμίαν which 
it does measure, and which would not be distinguishable 
without the transitions. This accords perfectly with the 
facts, and is accurate enough for a general statement, 
such as Aristoxenos intended. Yet if we would make 
the description more minutely accurate, it could be 
improved by one slight modification. 

This appears most plainly in the dance, where the 
terms ‘rest’ and ‘motion’ are not figurative but literal. 
Certainly in the dance as we know it, and without doubt 
generally, the periods of strict rest are scarcely present 
at all. The body as a whole, or in some prominent part, 
is almost constantly in motion; a part only —as one 
foot and then the other, or the arms or head and so on 
—jin regular alternation or sequence comes to a brief 
rest, while other parts move. Take walking as the 
simplest example. The body as a whole is moving 
forward all the time; but the left foot, say, is brought 
to rest on the ground, and remains at rest—or part of 
the sole does — until the right is firmly planted; then 
the left is raised and moved forward, with very complex 
movement of the leg, and brought again to rest. This 
goes on with both feet alternately, one moving while 
the other rests; from the sole up the motion is constant, 
though regularly varied; for each foot looked at by itself 
the period of rest and that of transition are almost equal. 
How does the conception of Aristoxenos apply? Evi- 
dently in this way. The coming to rest of one foot is 
noted by the rhythmic sense as the beginning of a rhyth- 
mic time, which is felt to continue until the coming to 





120 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


rest of the other foot marks the beginning of a new 
time; and for each foot separately a rhythmic time is 
felt to continue from the beginning of one contact with 
the ground until the beginning of the next contact. 
Those time-intervals are "noted and measured against 
each other. But the period of transition for each foot 
is not independently noted and measured in that way; 
if felt at all as part of the rhythm, it is felt in a subor- 
dinate relation, and with no reference to its precise com- 
parative duration. We come around to the same point 
that was reached by analysis of the play accompanying 
the jingle “ Bean Porridge Hot.” The times noted by 
the rhythmic sense extend from the beginning of one 
time to the beginning of the next or the corresponding 
time: what marks those beginnings marks the times} 
the transitions merely occupy a larger or smaller por- 
tion, scarcely or not at all noted as regards duration, of 
the rhythmic times. 

It will be seen that this is hardly to be called a modi- 
fication of the view of Aristoxenos; it only carries his 
description into minuter detail. His remark is accurate 
and touches the heart of the matter, when he says: “ No 
one of these (σχῆμα. φθόγγος. συλλαβήν) can we perceive 
— (i. e., detect its beginning or recognize it as a distinct 
entity) without a coming to rest” after a transition. 
That applies literally to the dance. And the term ἠρεμία 
once accepted for the musical note and the sy llable, 
together with κίνησις for the transition from one note 
or syllable to the next, his statement of the brevity of 
the motion as compared with the period of rest requires 
no modification or explanation in regard to music and 
poetry. 

We turn now to the difference in movement as between 
the speaking and the singing voice. At the very out 

















RHYTHM IN GREEK 121 


set the fact must be obvious that movement or motion 
in this connection is something very unlike the motion 
we have just been considering. Both are called κίνησις 
by Aristoxenos, because language is limited; but the 
context should leave no room for ambiguity. 

With most of Westphal’s interpretation of the passage 
no fault ss to be found. Aristoxenos proposes (Harm. 
p. 8 Mb.) to examine τῆς κατὰ τόπον κινήσεως τὰς διαφο- 
pas, or the different ways in which the voice moves κατὰ 
τόπον. Τόπος is here, by metaphor, the range of pitch 
in the musical scale; it is the movement of the voice 
up and down that scale that is under examination; the 
aim is to differentiate the speech-tune from song proper. 
These are two kinds of tune, two kinds of movement 
up and down the scale. The speaking voice in general 
glides, as we say, from one pitch to another, without 
pausing on one pitch long enough to make a steady 
musical note, maintained at the same rate of vibration 
for an appreciable time. In singing, however, the voice 
instead of gliding moves up and down the scale by 
musical intervals; it stops an appreciable time on one 
note, passes as quickly as possible from that pitch to 
another, and stops there in like manner; andso on. The 
former mode of movement up and down the scale Aris- 
toxenos calls συνεχὴς (continuous or uninterrupted) 
κίνησις. the latter he calls διαστηματικὴ κίνησις, move- 
ment by intervals, or discrete movement. The principal 
paragraph is this: 

Κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν συνεχῆ τόπον τινὰ διεξιέναι φαίνεται 
ἡ φωνὴ τῇ αἰσθήσει οὕτως ὡς ἂν μηδαμοῦ ἱσταμένη 1 pnd 
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν περάτων κατά γε τὴν τῆς αἰσθήσεως φαν- 
τασίαν, ἀλλὰ φερομένη συνεχῶς μέχρι σιωπῆς, κατὰ δὲ 


1 No ἢ is to be inserted as in Westphal’s text; ὡς ἄν suggests an 
optative from διεξιέναι, not requiring to be expressed. 





22. CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


τὴν ἑτέραν ἣν ὀνομάζομεν διαστηματικὴν ἐναντίως φαίνεται 
κινεῖσθαι" διαβαίνουσα γὰρ ἵστησιν αὑτὴν ἐπὶ μιᾶς τά- 
σεως εἶτα πάλιν ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρας, καὶ τοῦτο ποιοῦσα συνεχῶς --- 
λέγω δὲ συνεχῶς κατὰ τὸν χρόνον --- ὑπερβαίνουσα μὲν 
τοὺς περιεχομένους ὑπὸ τῶν τάσεων τόπους ἱσταμένη δ᾽ 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν τάσεων καὶ φθεγγομένη ταύτας μόνον αὐτὰς, 
μελῳδεῖν λέγεται καὶ κινεῖσθαι διαστηματικὴν κίνησιν. 
“In the one, namely continuous movement, the voice 
appears to our senses to traverse a certain space as if not 
stopping! anywhere, not even at the upper and lower 
limits of the range, at least as the sense conceives it, but 
borne on continuously until it becomes silent. But in 
the other, which we name discrete movement, the voice 
appears to move in a very different manner. Passing 
over an interval it stops on one pitch, then again ona 
second; and doing this continuously —I mean continu- 
ously in time — skipping the intervals bounded by the 


notes but stopping on the notes themselves and sounding 
these only, it is said to sing a melody and to move by 


discrete movement.” 

These words are perfectly clear. The parenthesis 
λέγω δὲ συνεχῶς κατὰ τὸν χρόνον is thrown in because he 
has used συνεχῶς in two senses. With φερομένη the 
word συνεχῶς is used κατὰ τόπον, of the range of pitch, 
and means by glides, or without stopping on any inter- 
vening pitch, as the violin sounds when, as the bow is 
drawn, the finger slides, irregularly but without stopping 
anywhere, up and down the string. But with τοῦτο 
ποιοῦσα the word συνεχῶς is used κατὰ χρόνον, and 
means unceasingly, or without change ; while τοῦτο 
ποιοῦσα means skipping intervals and stopping only on 
certain notes. The singing voice does that unceasingly. 
If in place of the second συνεχῶς Aristoxenos had said 


1 See note on preceding page. 





RHYTHM IN GREEK 123 


ἀεί OY πάντα τὸν χρόνον μέχρι σιωπῆς and omitted the 
parenthesis, the modern reader would not have misun- 
derstood ; but συνεχῶς is the usual word in this precise 
sense, and he thought his parenthesis removed all difh- 
culty. To make the matter still plainer he goes on to 
repeat the explanation in slightly varied terms, which 
Westphal translates accurately, in harmony with the 
version above. 

Now this passage from the Harmonica has no connec- 
tion with the above Psellos fragment. One has to do 
with music alone, in the narrow sense of μέλος, the other 
with rhythm alone. Κίνησις in one refers to movement 
up and down the scale, cata τόπον, with no regard to 
time ; in the other κίνησις denotes the transition (erd- 
βασιςῪ from position to position, note to note, syllable 
to syllable, which takes place κατὰ χρόνον, with no 
reference to τόπος. But Westphal unfortunately allowed 
himself to get befogged by the combination of four cir- 
cumstances: -—that κινέω plays an important part in 
both passages, that συνεχῶς also is important in both 
passages in close connection with κινέω, that συνεχῶς is 
employed in two senses, and especially, farther, that the 
ἠρεμίαι of the passage on rhythm are in one ῥυθμιζόμενον, 
μέλος, usually identical with the ἵστασθαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν 
τάσεων καὶ φθέγγεσθαι ταύτας μόνον. But even in μέλος 
the rhythmical ἠρεμία was not always identical with the 
continuance on the same pitch, for two or more success- 
ive notes might be perfectly distinct with no change of 
pitch between them; and it by no means follows that the 
ἠρεμίαν in the third ῥυθμιζόμενον, syllables, are also 
musical notes. That is Westphal’s mistaken inference, 
which he is led into by that innocent parenthesis, λέγω 
δὲ συνεχῶς κατὰ τὸν χρόνον, which has no hearing on it, 
but is fully accounted for otherwise, as above. It is 





124 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


that parenthesis which leads him to insist: “ Auf der 
einen Seite gesungene Silben, auf der anderen Seite 
gesprochene Silben! In beiden Fiillen sind es Silben 
und ihre Zeitdauer, um die es sich handelt.” On the 
contrary, in the one passage it is exclusively the changes 
of pitch of syllables, not their Zeitdauer, which is in 
question; change of pitch only is meant by κίνησις there. 
The Psellos passage alone deals with time, and in all 
three rhythmic mediums alike. In the latter the pera- 
βασις, also called κίνησις, is said to be not determinable 
as regards duration, while the ἠρεμία is determinable. 
But the κίνησις in these cases does not refer to change of 
pitch at all; it coincides with change of pitch, even in 
singing, in only a part of the cases. When two success- 
ive syllables are sung to different notes, then change of 
pitch and the rhythmic μετάβασις from syllable to sylla- 
ble coincide in time, as do the musical note and the 
rhythmic ἠρεμία. But suppose two successive syllables 
are sung on the same note. No change of pitch occurs. 
There is no κίνησις in the sense of the Harmonica pas- 
sage. But the κίνησις in the sense of rhythmic μετάβα- 
cis is no less distinct than if a change of pitch had 
occurred ; and the μετάβασις now is identical with that 
from syllable to syllable in speaking. In spoken sylla- 
bles, on the other hand, as Aristoxenos here describes 
them, κίνησις in the sense of change of pitch occupies 
the time wholly, so that if the two κινήσεις were the 
same, there would be no ἠρεμίαι whatever to make even 
the ghost of arhythm ; but κίνησις in the sense of rhyth- 
mic μετάβασις is brief, is identical with the μετάβασις 
between successive syllables sung on the same pitch, and 
rhythm may be perfect. 

In the above I have but followed Weil, whose refuta- 
tion of Westphal the latter quotes (Rhythmik, p. 9 f.), 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 125 


but only to defend his own view; and in general Weil’s 
understanding of the matter seems to have been adopted 
by but few. My exposition has gone farther into detail 
in the hope —perhaps vain—of clearing up the con- 
fusion for some who would otherwise, without close 
examination, accept the view upheld by the great au- 
thority of Westphal and Gleditsch. 

With this support removed, the doctrine of a sharp 
separation between the rhythm of song and that of 
spoken verse falls to the ground. We do indeed find, 
in the passages quoted in Chapter IT on ‘rhythmi’ and 
‘metra,’ evidence that the metrici made a separate class 
of the more elaborate lyric meters, as over against a 
class containing both the simpler lyric and all recitative 
verse. But that is not the same as a division between 
gesagter and gesungener Vers. Such a division as the 
metrici made is rather of itself evidence that the differ- 
ences were merely of degree, not of kind, and were slight 
and gradual, in passing from spoken verse of the simplest 
sort to the most elaborate melic. The metrici drew the 
line at the point where the departure from their rule of 
two to one for long and short became too wide for their 
method to explain. And as between prose and recitative 
verse I do not know that any one has attempted seriously 
to maintain the existence of any distinction but one of 
degree. 

The remarks of Dionysios Hal., De Comp. Verb., 17 
and 20, we shall examine in another connection. But 
some sentences from 11 of the same work belong here. 
Dionysios has just said that an ordinary crowd in the 
theater expressed their displeasure at once, if a musician, 
however famous, made a trifling mistake, though perhaps 
no one of those offended could himself do correctly what 
he blamed the player for not doing. This, Dionysios 








126 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


. 


ri 


ghtly says, indicates that we have a natural aptitude 
for music. Few have the technical knowledge required 
for artistic performance, but the faculty of passive appre- 
ciation is nature’s gift to all. He then adds: 

To δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ῥυθμῶν γινόμενον ἐθεασάμην, 
ἅμα πάντας ἀγανακτοῦντας καὶ δυσαρεστουμένους. ὅτε τις 
ἢ κροῦσιν ἢ κίνησιν ἢ φωνὴν ἐν ἀσυμμέτροις ποιήσαιτο 
χρόνοις, καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς ἀφανίσειεν. . . . μουσικὴ γάρ 
τις ἣν καὶ ἡ τῶν πολιτικῶν λόγων ἐπιστήμη. τῷ ποσῷ 
διαλλάττουσα τῆς ἐν ὠδαῖς καὶ ὀργάνοις, οὐχὶ τῷ ποιῷ. 
καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ λέξεις καὶ ῥυθμὸν 
καὶ μεταβολὴν καὶ πρέπον. ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης ἡ ἀκοὴ 
τέρπεται μὲν τοῖς μέλεσιν. ἄγεται δὲ τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς, ἀσπά- 
ζεται δὲ τὰς μεταβολάς, ποθεῖ δὲ ἐπὶ πάντων τὸ οἰκεῖον " 
ἡ δὲ διαλλαγὴ κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. 

“In the case of rhythms too I have seen the same 
thing happen,—a whole crowd together showing dis- 
pleasure and indignation when one rendered a passage, 
either of instrumental music or dance or vocal utterance, 
in unsymmetrical or improperly proportioned times, and 
so destroyed the rhythms.” If Dionysios stopped here 
one might suppose φωνήν to mean singing merely, 
But in fact, after insisting that variety and appropriateness 
are no less important than tune and rhythm, as one may 
see in vocal and instrumental music and in dancing, he 
proceeds: “ And my comparison is not alien to the subject, 
for oratory was also a sort of music, differing from that 
of songs and instruments in degree, not in kind. For in 
oratory too the words have tune, rhythm, modulation, 


and appropriateness. So that in this too the ear is 
pleased by the melody, is moved by the rhythms, wel- 
comes the changes, and everywhere desires appropri- 


ateness; the difference is in the more and less.” 
It is plain that to Dionysios the rhythms of prose 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 127 


were like those of music; they lay in the σύμμετροι 
χρόνοι of successive syllables; a speaker might destroy 
the rhythms by giving to the times of the syllables 
wrong ratios, at which a large mixed audience would 
take offence. He then goes on, in a passage akin to the 
one cited from Aristoxenos, to describe the tune of 
speech, consisting of the prose accents; these disappear 
in singing, being replaced by the composer’s melody, as 
he illustrates from a chorus of the Orestes. Later (p. 
136 Schaefer) he calls a pleasing speech-tune, not of the 
singing but of the speaking voice, εὐμελές but not 
ἐμμελές ; in like manner of rhythm, well ordered prose is 
evpv@ wos but not ἔρρυθμος ; ἐμμελής and ἔρρυθμος belong 
respectively only to music and verse. He then proposes 
to show how prose, by the very arrangement of words, 
may be made pleasing, not only in the speech-tune, in the 
variety of changes, and in appropriateness to the subject, 
but also κατὰ τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν ῥυθμῶν. Later in 
chapter 25 (p. 384 Schaefer), he explains excellently 
the difference between εὔρυθμος and ἔρρυθμος, thus: 

Ἢ μὲν ὅμοια περιλαμβάνουσα μέτρα. καὶ τεταγμένους 
σώζουσα ῥυθμοὺς, κατὰ στίχον ἢ περίοδον ἢ στροφὴν διὰ 
τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων περαινομένη, κἄπειτα πάλιν τοῖς 
αὐτοῖς ῥυθμοῖς καὶ μέτροις ἐπὶ τῶν ἑξῆς στίχων ἢ περιό- 
δων ἢ στροφῶν χρωμένη, καὶ τοῦτο μέχρι πολλοῦ ποιοῦσα, 
ἔρρυθμός ἐστι καὶ ἔμμετρος, καὶ ὀνόματα κεῖται τῇ τοιαύτῃ 
λέξει μέτρον καὶ μέλος - ἡ δὲ πεπλανωμένα μέτρα καὶ 
ἀτάκτους ῥυθμοὺς ἐμπεριλαμβάνουσα, καὶ μήτ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν 
ἐμφαίνουσα αὐτῶν μήτε ὁμοζυγίαν μήτ᾽ ἀντιστροφὴν, εὔ- 
ρυθμος μέν ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ διαπεποίκιλταί τισι ῥυθμοῖς - οὐκ 
ἔρρυθμος δὲ, ἐπειδὴ οὐχὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸ αὐτό. 
τοιαύτην εἶναι δή φημι πᾶσαν λέξιν εὔμετρον, ἥτις ἐμφαί-. 
vel τὸ ποιητικὸν καὶ μελικόν" ἡ δὴ καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένη 
κεχρῆσθαί φημι. 














128 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Accordingly his whole metrical section, describing 
and naming the feet, is as suitable to a handbook of 
metric as to a treatise on rhetoric. All the detailed 
discussions of prose rhythm, from Aristotle and earlier 
to Quintilian, assume the same thing without any per- 
ception on the part of their authors that a specific state- 
ment of it was needed. 

On every side, in fact, in Greek as in English, lan- 
guage exhibits this unbroken gradation from the most 
careless to the most perfect artistic form. On the side 
of tone-quality and tune we may readily observe the 
progression. As the finer and more elevated emotions gain 
prominence, the tones of the voice — unless indeed the 
nature or violence of the emotion weakens the muscular 
control over the organs of speech — take on more and more 
of the pure quality that we call musical; appropriate 
passages of prose, still more of poetry, one may hear 
pronounced on the stage, and particularly by the best 
actresses, in the purest musical tone. Concurrently with 
this progression we may discern a parallel change in the 
speech-tune; where the purest tone 1s appropriate a 
good actress will frequently employ a form of true mel- 
ody. Glides may be more prominent than 1s usual in 
acknowledged singing, but the whole will approach, as 
nearly as possible without attracting too marked notice, 
the character of a melody that could be written in our 
musical scales. Darwin has noted this in his Expression 
of the Emotions in Man and Animals (chap. IV): 
ἐς From this fact [that an ape, one of the gibbons, pr‘ xluces 
an exact octave of musical sounds ],” he says, “ and from 
the analogy of other animals, I have been led to inter 
that the progenitors of man probably uttered musical 


tones [ to express emotion | before they acquired the 


Ἶ Ἰ 
᾿ Ὶ anh « ‘ ) wyTaTy)tT y ynen the 
power of articulate speech ; and conseq us ntly Wi 


., 


RHYTHM IN GREEK 129 
voice is used under any strong emotion it tends to assume, 
through the principle of association, a musical character.” 
Aristoxenos observed the same thing. In the discussion 
of the speaking and singing voice, just after the passage 
before considered, he says (p. 9 Mb.): “In talking we 
avoid holding the voice steady on any pitch, unless 
because of emotion we are forced to that kind of move- 
ment.” This is a recognition of the fact that emotions 
cause the speaking voice to become more like the singing 
voice ; greater steadiness of pitch and greater evenness 
in glides are accompanied by more musical quality of 
tone. In accordance with this remark of Aristoxenos we 
find that Aristides Q. (p. 7 Mb.) places beside the con- 
tinuous and discrete movement of the voice a third kind, 
μέση. ἡ TAS TOV ποιημάτων ἀναγνώσεις ποιούμεθα. This 
is ἃ valuable observation. It adds the fact, which 
accords fully with what we see in modern languages, 
that Greek poetry was read in a style that stood between 
that of conversation and that of singing, as regards tone- 
quality and pitch changes. The passage from the more 
commonplace and diffuse in thought or verbal expression 
to the more elevated, condensed, rich in ideas and emo- 

tion, was expressed also in the changed character of the 

vocal sounds, in the increase of the musical element. 
Along with this went,as we saw in Chapter II, in- 
creased precision in the observance of rhythm. A high 
degree of this was called πλάσμα. which doubtless con- 
noted the closer approximation to music in the other 
particulars besides rhythm. In all these aspects song 
stood at the upper end of the scale, which ran down, as 
with us, to the simplest prosaic utterance. In the latter, 
it is true, the ancients appear to have been hardly con- 
scious of any approximation to rhythm. Their attention 
was attracted only by the conscious endeavor to produce 
9 





1} 0 


᾿ . ; 
’ Trig bie 
LCast ΓΠηΘ {1011 
} +} »Ὁ | 

Ϊ nara rney 

avor. there th | | 
enaeavor. nel | ‘ tt art 

j ne SsenwTtiAl OT i 

+ minds recoonized. the esse nvial , , 
ΐ 10 TELi it At » ἢ — . . rial 
aa μά deal iow with materia 


ynrocess Ing 
he 


‘hythmizing 3 abe 
: r failed t ecorgnize 
That they tallied to recog 
Cy rhvthmize, even 
ality he tendency to rh 
rersalcty of the \ Se 
agi 3 present, and that 


J mw 
COnSCLOUS 


. 
ὃ : 
; } Ἢ 
more OF i€ss plastic ° 


> ΄ , ᾿ς ‘ t 

that conscious endeavor was not ame ΕΣ 

4 ‘ . al : ΟΝ ΡΝ ᾿ a i ies 

ΤΩ times conceived ot the 8) Le bic αὶ HovLvl 
SOTeL 
a ° ν _— ‘a ῃ sy] ¢ 
is rigidly fixed (as in the first sentence be 
as Ad ᾿ . et . 5 nee 
f Dionysios Hal. quoted above on p- ) , 
a ts our acceptance ot a conclusion 


» of the passage 
| not 


surprise us nor prevent : τὰ 

. λ r ‘Ti A. 

based on such an accumulation ot evidenc 
ει. ς . 


V 
FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 


ARISTOXENOS defines the foot by describing its func- 
tion, in the words: ᾧ σημαινόμεθα τὸν ῥυθμὸν καὶ γνώρι- 
μον ποιοῦμεν τῇ αἰσθήσει πούς ἐστιν εἷς ἢ πλείους ἑνός. 
This follows, in our fragment of the Elements of 
Rhythm, a series of preliminary definitions. After reit- 
erating with emphasis that rhythm deals with time, and 
arises only when there is an arrangement of times, he 
defines first the πρῶτος τῶν χρόνων, the δίσημος χρόνος, 
τρίσημος, etc., then simple and compound time in vari- 
ous relations, which involves a partial elucidation of 
ῥυθμοποιία. It is thus made as distinct as possible that 
the foot, which is treated next, is a matter of times, and 
only secondarily of syllables, notes, or Steps, as these 
embody times. 

The essence of the foot is that by it the rhythm is 
marked and made cognizable and intelligible. The 
active and middle voices of the two verbs are not acci- 
dental, but are designed to bring out the two aspects of 
the action. Σημαινόμεθα points within, to the mental 
process of apprehending, of noting to one’s self as articu- 
lated in some definite way, the series of times concerned ; 
γνώριμον ποιοῦμεν looks outward, to the action of 
making the articulation of the series perceptible to 
others. Both of these at once we do through the foot. 
Neither verb refers to beating time; that is merely an 
external aid to one or the other side of the process. 
The process is complete within the meaning of the defi- 





CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


nition whenever one simply renders the series of times, 
being conscious of its rhythmical character, so that 
another may also become conscious of it. 

Evidently the foot is conceived as a sort of common 
measure of the series. The earlier name μέτρον embodies 
the same idea. When a rhythmical series 18 rendered, 
the times are perceived to be grouped, in larger and 
smaller divisions; that is what is meant by a Takis 
χρόνων. Among these various divisions, and running 
through all with more or less distinctness, a group of 
times detaches itself to our sense, because it is often 
repeated, either in the same form or with so slight varia- 
tion that we still feel the substantial identity. The group 
so repeated, with not too great variations, makes up the 
whole series and gives it a specific character, which 
varies with the character of the smaller group. To 
Aristoxenos any group of times recognized by our senses 
as performing that function isa foot. The smallest such 
group is a simple foot; if a group which performs that 
function is perceived to be itself made up of smaller 
groups which also perform the same function, then the 
larger of the two is a compound foot. The simple foot 1s 
the smallest unit of measurement — not group of times, 
but sufficiently repeated and distinctly characterizing 
group of times to constitute a unit of measurement — 
after the πρῶτος χρόνος. 

The qualifying phrase “one or more than one” is 
added to the definition to cover the class known as 
dochmiac or “slantwise” rhythms.’ Different kinds of 


1 Perhaps also the “logacdic” or mixed meters. The difference 
between Westphal’s conception and mine, with regard to the appli- 
cation of the phrase to that class of rhythms, will become clear if one 
cares to compare his Aristoxenos I, pp. 20-25, with my discussion of 
those meters in the next chapter. 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 133 


simple feet were so combined in these that one alone was 
not sufficient to characterize the whole; each was dis- 
tinctly felt, the frequent shifting from one to another 
within the kolon was an essential part of the effect. We 
have parallels in modern music. For example, there are 
some Hungarian popular songs in which the time shifts 
frequently, from measure to measure, so that a double 
indication of it has to be used, as 3. 3, or ὁ ὃ. The char- 
acteristic movement of one may be seen in the phrase: 





3 ee 3 ΓῚ 


ΣΞ 6. 4- δ 8 -- 














αὐ 

















δι... 
ad 
— 


Rhythmically the whole song? consists of this kolon 
repeated six times with varying tune and harmony. A 
notable example of such combination is thus described 
by William Mason in his Memories of a Musical 
Life.2 “ Raff had composed a sonata for violin and 
pianoforte in which there were ever-varying changes in 
measure and rhythm; measures of f, 4, 3, alternated with 
common and triple time, and seemed to mix together 
promiscuously and without regard to order. Notwith- 
standing this apparent disorder, there was an under- 
current, so to speak, of the ordinary $ or 4 time, and to 
the player who could penetrate the rhythmic mask the 
difficulty of performance quickly vanished.” Mr. Mason 
goes on to tell how one of the musicians who had prac- 
tised the sonata to play it before Liszt broke down from 
ee over the confusing changes, whereupon 
ma “ ον at sight hes rapid tempo and 

sightest hesitation.” Whether among 


1 Collection Litolff, No. 128 
» srO. 1, Magyar Dal- . : 
thie eaten wale dies 296, 955, 594, 81 g i. al-Album, 214; others in 


* Century Magazine, Sept. 1900, vol. Lx, p. 775. 





154 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


modern popular dances any such shifting rhythms exist 
I do not know; I should rather expect one might be 
found. There is probably no parallel in English verse ; 
though the verse that originates and gains acceptance 
among the less cultivated, who are less bound by theory 
and follow the ear more boldly, certainly exhibits far 
more variety of rhythm than greater poets dare employ, 
and such verse has received no serious examination on 
this side. There can be no doubt that such rhythms 
were familiar to the Greeks, and therefore without the 
words els ἡ πλείους ἑνός the defining sentence would not 
quite cover the ground. In our farther discussion, how- 
ever, the dochmiac rhythms will for the present be left 
out of view. 

The sentence that defines the foot 18 followed by the 
words: 

Τῶν δὲ ποδῶν οἱ μὲν ἐκ δύο χρόνων σύγκεινται τοῦ τε 
ἄνω καὶ τοῦ κάτω, οἱ δὲ ἐκ τριῶν, δύο μὲν τῶν ἄνω ἑνὸς δὲ 
τοῦ κάτω, ἢ ἐξ ἑνὸς μὲν τοῦ ἄνω δύο δὲ τῶν κάτω [οἱ δὲ 
ἐκ τεττάρων, δύο μὲν τῶν ἄνω δύο δὲ τῶν κάτω]. ὅτι μὲν 
οὖν ἐξ ἑνὸς χρόνου ποὺς οὐκ ἂν εἴη φανερόν, ἐπειδήπερ ἕν 
σημεῖον οὐ ποιεῖ διαίρεσιν χρόνου " ἄνευ γὰρ διαιρέσεως 
χρόνου ποὺς οὐ δοκεῖ γίνεσθαι. 

In English: ‘Some feet consist of two times, the 
up-time and the down-time ; others of three, the up-times 
being two and the down-time one, or again of one up- 
time and two down-times ; others of four, two up-times 
and two down. It is plain that a single time would not 
constitute a foot, because one σημεῖον does not effect a 
division of time; for without division of time there does 
not seem to be a foot.” 

As was remarked in an earlier chapter (p. 37) 
χρόνος cannot here mean the πρῶτος χρόνος. For a 
little later (p. 802 Mor.) Aristoxenos says: Τῶν δὲ 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 135 


ποδῶν ἐλάχιστοι μέν εἰσιν οἱ ἐν τρισήμῳ μεγέθει. τὸ yap 


δίσημον μέγεθος παντελῶς ἂν ἔχοι πυκνὴν τὴν ποδικὴν 
σημασίαν. It is true that Aristoxenos is here deal- 
ing only with feet that are employed in continuous 
rhythmopoiia, and he may have accepted the δίσημος 
πούς as an isolated occurrence, as at the beginning of 
the line in certain Aiolic meters. On the other ἐμὰ. 
(300 Mon) shows ak tenn tan: Aeldouink ee 
| xenos is con- 
sidering only the feet of continuous rhythmopoiia, not 
isolated and exceptional occurrences. He is still early 
in his treatise, at least early in that part of it which 
describes the rhythms of art, and his definitions and 
other statements are general, intended to set forth first 
the broad outlines, not the exceptional peculiarities. 


φ 


The foot, for example, is that ᾧ σημαινόμεθα τὸν ῥυθμὸν 
καὶ γνώριμον ποιοῦμεν τῇ αἰσθήσει. This has no appli- 
cation except to the feet of continuous rhythmopoiia ; 
an isolated exceptional foot cannot be brought under i, 
and is called by the same name only by courtesy, — that 
is to say, by analogy, because language is limited. It is 
the feet to which that definition applies of which Aris- 
toxenos immediately goes on to say that “some ocnaid 
of two times,” and so on. Besides it is not improbable 
—it seems to me probable —that what the ake 
called,in those Aiolic meters, a foot of two short syllables 
was really, to Aristoxenos, not strictly two-timed but 
irrational. It was restricted to the first place in rhythms 
of triple and quadruple time; the rhythmizing process 
would most naturally make it approximate in actual 
time to its neighbors. But however that may be gil 
we have no direct evidence for this explanation — on 
the former ground alone I consider it certain that Aris- 
toxenos did not regard two strictly short syllables alone 





136 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


as making a foot within the meaning of this passage, 
and that the feet of “two times, the up-time and the 
down-time,” were more than δίσημος. The times here 
meant are the χρόνοι ποδικοί, the times which constitute 
the normal feet, excluding the modifications which 
ῥυθμοποιία may introduce. the expression is purposely 
kept general, to apply to πόδες σύνθετοι as well as to 
simple feet; but we shall avoid some risk of confusion 
if we look first at the application to simple feet only, 
and only in one medium, language. So restricted and so 
embx died χρόνος ποδικός becomes identical with syllable. 
The same use of χρόνος without the defining TOOLKOS 
appears in the Oxyrhynchos papyrus attributed to 
Aristoxenos. Τὸ μονόχρονον οἰκειότερον τοὺ τροχαίκου 
ἢ τοῦ ἰάμβου (col. ill.) must mean " the foot-space 
occupied by a single syllable Q. @., One χρόνος TOOLKOS 
only) is more appropriate to trochaic rhythm than to the 
iambus.” Τὸ μονόχρονον is here a τρίσημος syllable, else- 
where it might be a τετράσημος ; it is the largest χρόνος 
ποδικός ---- [παν is, the space of a whole foot, but un- 
divided, consisting of one “ time ” only, because filled by 
a single syllable. Again in col. v, the τετράχρονος 
κρητικὴ λέξις is not ἃ τετράσημος speech-form, contain- 
ing four πρῶτοι χρόνοι, but a four-syllabled speech- 
form, —u—v, containing four ποδικοὶ χρόνοι, each 
represented by a syllable. Earlier in col. Vv the clause, 
ὥστε τὴν μὲν πρώτην ξυλλαβὴν ἐν τῷ μεγίστῳ χρόνῳ 
κεῖσθαι, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν ἐν τῷ ἐλαχίστῳ, τὴν δὲ τρίτην ἐν 
τῷ μέσῳ, employs χρόνος for ποδικὸς χρόνος, but in such 
a manner that the technical and the ordinary sense run 
together. So also in col. ii, ὁ δάκτυλος ὁ κατ᾽ ἴαμβον 
ἀνάπαλι τῶν περιεχουσῶν ξυλλαβῶν τεθεισῶν εἰς τοὺς 


χρόνους ἢ ὡς ἐν τῷ κρητικῷ ἐτίθεντο. “the iambic dactyl 
(or dactyl with iambic thesis and arsis, vy — v —), in which 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 137 


the syllables comprising it (or constituent syllables) are 
set to the time-intervals in the reverse order as com- 
pared with the cretic (— vy —v).” 

Adhering now to our restricted application, the mean- 
ing of the passage under consideration is this. There 
can be no foot without at least two syllables, for one 
syllable does not divide time and produce a ratio of 
times. A μονόχρονον among trochees is not strictly a 
foot, though its equivalent in time. Some feet consist 
of two syllables, one for the up-beat and one for the 
down-beat, (iambus, trochee, or spondee). Others con- 
sist of three syllables, two for the up-beat and one for 
the down (anapest and dactyl); or again one for the 
up-beat and two for the down (~~—v and —v~_); 
others consist of four syllables, two for the up-beat and 
two for the down (paion —v v vy, or ionic v ---- and 
-»" am YS v). 

The foregoing appears to me the most probable solu- 
tion of the long-standing and much-dliscussed problem, 
precisely what times Aristoxenos meant to include 
under the χρόνοι ποδικοί. In its favor, besides the sim- 
plicity of interpretation for this locus classicus, are 
three considerations, two positive and one negative. 

First, the feet thus assumed as the normal ones, by 
which the rhythmical character of the series was deter- 
mined and the beating of time was regulated, are 
adequate, filling all requirements. In them without 
exception each long syllable has twice the length of a 
short. All three γένη, namely ἴσον, διπλάσιον, ἡμιόλιον, 
are provided for fully, in every variety. All the other 
common feet are but slight variations of these, pro- 
duced by resolution of a long syllable into two short, 
or union of two short into one long, or both together. 
These changes produce the simplest of the χρόνοι τῆς 





138 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι. Trisemes and tetrasemes are also 
χρόνοι ποδικοί, provided they coincide with arsis, thesis, 
or whole foot; otherwise they are among the χρόνοι 
τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι, farther varieties of which we need 
not dwell on at present. 

Secondly, the term σημεῖον ποδικόν and most of the 
passages employing it are rendered more intelligible, at 
least as regards the simple feet. Besides the clause 
ἕν σημεῖον ov ποιεῖ διαίρεσιν χρόνου, where σημεῖον as 
applied to language is pretty clearly identical with syl- 
lable, the most significant passages are these. 

(1) Ποδικὸς μὲν οὖν ἐστι χρόνος ὁ κατέχων σημείου 
ποδικοῦ μέγεθος, οἷον ἄρσεως ἢ βάσεως ἢ ὅλου ποδός. 
(Frag. 8 ap. Psell.) That is, in magnitude χρόνος ποδικός 
and σημεῖον ποδικόν are equal. 

(2) Nonréov δὲ χωρὶς τά τε τὴν τοῦ ποδὸς δύναμιν 
φυλάσσοντα σημεῖα καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας γινομένας 
διαιρέσεις ᾿ καὶ προσθετέον δὲ ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἑκάστου ποδὸς 
σημεῖα διαμένει ἴσα ὄντα καὶ τῷ ἀριθμῷ καὶ τῷ μεγέθει, 
αἱ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας γινόμεναι διαιρέσεις πολλὴν 
λαμβάνουσι ποικιλίαν. (Aristox., p. 292 Mor.) That is, 
the σημεῖα ποδικὰ determine or indicate the precise char- 
acter of the foot, and continue unchanged, preserving 
that individual character of the foot under all the 
changes of the rhythmopoiia. The arrangement of times 
constituting the characteristic and fundamental foot of 
any rhythm remains and is felt as the substratum run- 
ning through all the variations. In a similar way in 
modern music, say in common time, both conductor and 
players are conscious of the regular four beats, equiva- 
lent to quarter notes, of each measure, running along 
with and as it were underneath the endless variety 
of rhythm in the actual notes. 

In poetry, and in reference to the simple foot, exclud- 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 139 


ing for the present the Aristoxenean σύνθετοι, the doc- 
trine is perfectly clear, if we take the smaller σημεῖα as 
equal to the syllables of the fundamental foot. In 


iambus, trochee, and spondee these lesser σημεῖα equal 
the arsis and thesis, and the largest σημεῖον equals the 
whole foot, in conformity with passage (1). But the 
word οἷον in (1) suggests, if it does not prove, that 
arsis, thesis, and whole foot do not exhaust the list of 
σημεῖα ποδικά. It leads us to expect in some feet other 
σημεῖα that do not coincide with arsis, thesis, or whole 
foot. And in fact the dactyl, anapeest, ionic, or cretic 
is not sufficiently characterized by indicating merely the 
magnitudes of the arsis, thesis, and whole foot. For 
example, that alone would make no distinction whatever 
between the dactyl or anapest and the spondee; all 
three would have the same σημεῖα, which in that case 
could hardly be spoken of as τὴν Tod ποδὸς δύναμιν 
φυλάσσοντα. Where arsis or thesis of the fundamental 
foot is divided between two syllables, it would seem 
that each syllable must embody a χρόνος ποδικός and 
be represented by a σημεῖον ποδικόν, if the σημεῖα are 
really to indicate and preserve amid all variation the 
individuality of the foot. To this add: 

(3) Δὔξεσθαι δὲ φαίνεται τὸ μὲν ἰαμβικὸν γένος μέχρι 
τοῦ ὀκτωκαιδεκασήμου μεγέθους, ὥστε γίνεσθαι τὸν μέγισ- 
τον πόδα ἑξαπλάσιον τοῦ ἐλαχίστου, τὸ δὲ δακτυλικὸν 
μέχρι τοῦ ἑκκαιδεκασήμου, τὸ δὲ παιωνικὸν μέχρι τοῦ πεν- 
τεκαιεικοσασήμου. αὔξεται δὲ ἐπὶ πλειόνων τό τε ἰαμβι- 
κὸν γένος καὶ τὸ παιωνικὸν τοῦ δακτυλικοῦ, ὅτι [ἐν τῷ 
ἐλαχίστῳ ποδὶ] πλείοσι σημείοις ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν χρῆται. 
οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ποδῶν δύο μόνοις πεφύκασι σημείοις χρῆσ- 
Oat, ἄρσει καὶ βάσει, οἱ δὲ τρισὶν ἄρσει καὶ διπλῇ βάσει, 
οἱ δὲ τέτρασι, δύο ἄρσεσι καὶ δύο βάσεσιν. (Frag. 12 


ap. Psell.) 





140 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


That the last sentence is nearly related to the one 
from which our discussion of the χρόνοι ποδικοί set out 
(quoted above, p. 184) is obvious enough, and is strik- 
ingly brought out by Westphal’s parallel columns 
(Rhythmik, p. 110 f.). As correlative terms we find in 


Aristox., p. 288 Mor. Psell. Frag. 


ἐκ δύο χρόνων σύγκειται | S00 σημείοις χρῆσθαι 
τοῦ τε ἄνω καὶ τοῦ κάτω ἄρσει καὶ βάσει 

ἐκ τριῶν τρισί 

δύο μὲν τῶν ἄνω 
ἑνὸς δὲ τοῦ κάτω ἢ 
ἐξ ἑνὸς μὲν τοῦ ἄνω ἄρσει καὶ 
δύο δὲ τῶν κάτω διπλῇ βάσει 


P. 290 Mor. 


’ / / , » 

ov γίνεται πλείω ση- τέτρασι, δύο ἄρσεσι 
“ -“ Ll , 

μεῖα τῶν τεττάρων καὶ δύο βάσεσι 





The equality of σημεῖα ποδικά and χρόνοι ποδικοί is 
farther confirmed by this parallelism. The phrase ἐν τῷ 
ἐλαχίστῳ ποδί was added by Westphal, is unnecessary, 
and as regards ἐλαχίστῳ impossible, I believe; yet it is 
certainly most natural to suppose that the last sentence 
refers primarily to the list of fundamental simple feet. 
With that understanding there is no difficulty in the last 
sentence, and the causal clause before it becomes also a 
natural and rational statement. But we will first look 
at two other paragraphs that bear upon this. 

(4) Διαφέρουσι δὲ οἱ μείζονες πόδες τῶν ἐλαττόνων ἐν 
τῷ αὐτῷ γένει ἀγωγῇ. ἔστι δὲ ἀγωγὴ ῥυθμοῦ τῶν ἐν τῷ 
αὐτῷ λόγῳ ποδῶν κατὰ μέγεθος διαφορά, οἷον ὁ τρίσημος 
ἰαμβικὸς ὁ [σημεῖον] συνέχων [év] ἐν ἄρσει καὶ διπλάσιον 


> , δ \ “- , 
ἐν θέσει [καὶ ὁ ἑξάσημος ἰαμβικὸς ὁ σημεῖα δύο συνέχων 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 141 


ἐν dpoet και διπλάσιον ἐν θέσει]. τῶν yap τριῶν ἡ διαί. 
ρεσις εἰς [ἕν] σημεῖον καὶ διπλάσιον γίνεται τῶν τε ἕξ 
ὁμοίως. ουτοι οὖν οἱ πόδες, μεγέθει ἀλλήλων διαφέροντες, 
γένει καὶ τῇ διαιρέσει τῶν ποδικῶν σημείων οἱ αὐτοί εἰσιν. 
(Excerpta Neap. 15, p. 415 Jan.) 

(5) Tod δὲ λαμβάνειν τὸν πόδα πλείω τῶν δύο σημεῖα 
τὰ μεγέθη τῶν ποδῶν αἰτιατέον. οἱ γὰρ ἐλάττους τῶν 
ποδῶν, εὐπερίληπτον τῇ αἰσθήσει τὸ μέγεθος ἔχοντες, 
εὐσύνοπτοί εἰσι καὶ διὰ τῶν δύο σημείων οἱ δὲ μεγάλοι 
τοὐναντίον πεπόνθασι, δυσπερίληπτον γὰρ τῇ αἰσθήσει 
τὸ μέγεθος ἔχοντες. πλειόνων δέονται σημείων, ὅπως εἰς 
πλείω μέρη διαιρεθὲν τὸ τοῦ ὅλου ποδὸς μέγεθος εὐσονοτ- 
τότερον γίνηται. διὰ τί δὲ οὐ γίνεται πλείω σημεῖα τῶν 
τεττάρων οἷς ὁ ποὺς χρῆται κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ δύναμιν ὕστε- 
ρον δειχθήσεται. (P. 290 Mor.) 

In (4) the reading 6 σημεῖον συνέχων is practically 
certain; but the following ἕν, and ἕν in line 7, are no 
more needed than is wa in the phrase apoe καὶ διπλῇ 
βάσει in the last sentence of (3). Something like the 
words καὶ ὁ ἑξάσημος ἰαμβικός x.7.r., added by Westphal, 
must have stood there, otherwise τῶν τε €& ὁμοίως would 
be inexplicable; but Westphal wrote διπλάσιον in the 
singular because he assumed that only one σημεῖον could 
stand for the thesis. With διπλάσια, or δύο διπλάσια, 
the whole becomes consistent with itself and with the 
rest. Finally aywyn, as Jan remarks, evidently does not 
here mean tempo, as it often does, but rather length, or 
the amount of time given to the foot. Our musical 
nomenclature, borrowing tempo from Italian, conven- 
iently distinguishes concepts that are yet closely enough 
related to allow the Greek, though with some loss of 
clearness, to employ the same term for both. 

The meaning of (4) then is this. “The larger feet 
differ from the smaller of the same classin aywy7. The 





142 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


meaning of rhythmic ἀγωγή is variation in length be- 
tween the feet in the same class; for example, the three- 
timed iambic, which contains a σημεῖον in arsis and a 
double one (one twice as long) in thesis, and the six- 
timed iambic, which contains two σημεῖα in arsis and 


two of double length in thesis. For the three [πρῶτοι 


χρόνοι] are divided into a σημεῖον and one of double 
length, and the six likewise (into two σημεῖα and two 
of double length). These feet, therefore, though differ- 
ing from each other in extent (μεγέθει here practically 
the same as ἀγωγῇ). are the same in class and in the 
division of the ποδικὰ σημεῖα." By the six-timed iambic 
we are to understand primarily vv —~ or —_vvy, 
probably also the iambic or trochaic dipody ὦ ~ ὦ — or 
we \/ .« V/, 

Passage (5) fits least easily into this interpretation. 
At first sight the phrasing of the opening sentence may 
appear a trifle unnatural in reference to the fundamental 
feet. My hesitation on that score has been overcome, 
however, by two considerations. On the one hand λαμ- 
Bavew and αἰτιατέον, the centers of difficulty, need not 
be pressed to mean anything more than ἔχειν and αἰτία. 
On the other hand, here as elsewhere the language is 
general, to apply not only to the fundamental feet but 
also to the σύνθετοι πόδες, the long feet of sixteen, eigh- 
teen, and twenty-five times referred to in (3). In refer- 
ence to those the phraseology ts wholly appropriate, and 
Aristoxenos may well have had these chiefly in mind in 
this sentence, though it applies to the fundamental feet 
as well. The difficulty, therefore, ceases to be serious 
and the whole may be rendered thus: “The reason for 
giving the foot more than two σημεῖα lies in the extent 
of the feet. The lesser feet, whose extent is easy for 
the sense to grasp, are readily comprehended in one view 


FOOT, ICTUS, “ CYCLIC” FEET 148 


through the two σημεῖα. But the opposite is true of 
the large feet. As their extent is difficult for the sense 
to grasp, they need more σημεῖα, in such wise that the 
extent of the whole foot, being divided into more parts, 
may more readily be comprehended in one view. Why 
there are never more σημεῖα than the four which the 
foot has in virtue of its own characteristic form will be 
shown later.” The later explanation is lost. 

In the last sentence the antecedent of ofs has been 
taken to be σημεῖα. So far as the grammar of this sen- 
tence goes, it might be so. But τῶν τεττάρων [σημείων] 
would seem to be the more natural antecedent, from the’ 
purely grammatical standpoint. The former has been 
preferred as fitting a preconceived interpretation; the 
argument for the latter, besides the very slight one of 
grammatical probability based on order, in that it pro- 
duces harmony of meaning with the other passages that 
point to four σημεῖα in the ionic and paionic. The 
four σημεῖα of the largest fundamental feet are never 
exceeded in number in the multiples of those feet, in 
the μεγάλοι πόδες of eighteen and twenty-five primary 
times. 

In the light of (4) and (5) the whole of (3) is now 
clear. In English: “In extent of the foot the limit of 
the iambic class is eighteen primary times, so that the 
largest foot becomes in extent the sixfold of the small- 
est; in the dactylic class it is sixteen primary times, in 
the paionic twenty-five. The iambic class and the pai- 
onic increase to a larger number of primary times than 
the dactylic, because each of them has more σημεῖα 
ποδικά"-- that is, in the fundamental foot into which 
the compound foot is divided. The scale would be 





CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Foot Σημεῖα Number 
Iambus ν -- 2 
Trochee — VY 
Spondee 
Dactyl 
Anapest 
Cretic 
Paion Vv 
Ionic ων 


Obviously the argument is not quite complete with- 
‘out one farther assumption, which is, I believe, justifi- 
able. Not only were ionic kola extended to eighteen 
times, with and without anaklasis, but also the plain 
iambic and trochaic. The argument therefore does not 
cover the ground unless we may understand that Aris- 
toxenos counted as fundamental feet for this purpose 
the iambic and trochaic dipody. That is possible 
enough. We are by no means fully informed as to the 
details of his nomenclature; but he appears to have 
given to these forms, at least in some connections, the 
distinctive names δάκτυλος κατ᾽ ἴαμβον and κρητικός 
τοϑρθοῦ γοὶγ. Also, they were of very frequent occur- 
rence mingled with ionics and precisely equivalent to 
them, while the longer iambic and trochaic kola were 
regularly measured and named on the assumption that 
what we call the dipody was the unit. With this 
addition to the scale the figures harmonize. A further 
reason for the addition will appear shortly. 

But the causal connection (ὅτι) is not so plain and 
has been considered absurd. Westphal (Rhyth., pp. 
113-117) followed Baumgart in rejecting it, finding the 
only rational explanation of the limits of extent for the 


1 See Oxyrh. Pap., col. ii, and Aristid. Q., i. 17. 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 145 


compound feet in Aristid. Q., p. 35 Mb. We are there 
told simply that the dactylic class stops at the sixteen- 
timed kolon διὰ τὸ ἐξασθενεῖν ἡμᾶς τοὺς μείζους τοῦ τοιού- 
του γένους διαγιγνώσκειν ῥυθμούς ; that the iambic stops 


at eighteen times, οὐκέτι yap τῆς τοῦ τοιούτου ῥυθμοῦ 
φύσεως ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα ; while the paionic extends to 
twenty-five times, μέχρι yap τοσούτου τὸν τοιοῦτον ῥυθμὸν 
τὸ αἰσθητήριον καταλαμβάνει. But is not this in perfect 
accord with the Psellos fragment, the two supplementing 
each other? Our power to grasp a rhythmical series 
as an organized whole depends on the character of its 
divisions. The simpler those are, the sooner in point of 
time, when a succession of them meets the sense, do we 
cease to organize them into a new whole and begin to 
receive them as a mere unorganized succession. The 
principle is general; it applies perfectly to the case 
before us. A unit of two foot-times or σημεῖα is the 
very simplest in rhythm; hence very soon, before six 
such units are heard, the mind ceases to organize them 
and group them, so as to view the series mentally all 
together (συνορᾶν) as one. Unless, be it added, they are 
so constituted that the mind naturally groups them by 
twos, and so forms a larger unit than the original one 
of two σημεῖα. That was the case for the Greek with 
the common iambic and trochaic rhythms. Each alter- 
nate simplest foot admitted an irrational syllable, a 
variation in structure that of itself made a dipodic 
grouping; and whether the irrational syllable was there 
or not, the dipodie grouping was generally made. This 
larger unit, with four σημεῖα, might be repeated to form 
a series of three; the mind would still organize them 
and be conscious of them as a larger whole up to eigh- 
teen primary times. That this theoretical explanation 


agrees with the practical treatment of such series no 
10 





146 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


one can doubt; our addition of the iambic and tro- 
chaic dipodies to the seale of feet and σημεῖα is thus 
confirmed. The dactyl, however, with only three σημεῖα, 
could be so organized and unified only to the limit of 
four feet, sixteen primary times.! The anapest followed 
the dactyl in this, in spite of the fact that for some 
reason, perhaps merely because of the connection with 
the double step in marching, anapestic verse was 
counted and named by dipodies. Yet the anapestic 
tetrameter was a very common group, though felt to be 
divided into two members. Ionic rhythms naturally 
were subject to like conditions with others of the iambic 
class, having the same number of σημεῖα as the iambic 
or trochaic dipody. The paion, with four σημεῖα, and 
with arsis and thesis in the peculiar ratio of two to three, 
had a more complex organization still; it could be 
extended to five feet or twenty-five times without failure 
of the unifying faculty. There is plainly a connection 
between the ratio of two to three within the foot and 
the number of five feet. 

(6) Three other remarks of Aristides Q. must not be 
overlooked. In the first chapter of his section on rhythm 
(p. 32 Mb.) he says: ‘The rhythm is divided in speech 
by the syllables, in music by the ratio between arsis and 
thesis, and in bodily movement τοῖς τε σχήμασι Kal τοῖς 
His whole 


. 


τούτων πέρασιν ἃ δὴ Kal σημεῖα καλεῖται. 
treatment of rhythm is so brief that it is difficult to say 

‘ - a @ = / ͵ 4 
whether the antecedent of @ is πέρασιν or σχήμασι καὶ 
πέρασι, or in what precise sense πέρασιν is here em- 


1 How we are to explain the apparent discrepancy between this 
statement and the unquestionable occurrence of dactylic pentapodies 
I do not yet know. In such a case as αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω 
a modern musician would certainly prolong the last two syllables to 
tetrasemes; if the Greek musician did the same, he would regard the 
whole as of two kola. 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 147 


ployed. The parallel expression in Aristoxenos is dca 
ρήσει τὸν χρόνον. . . ἡ κίνησις σημείοις TE καὶ σχήμασι 
καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἐστι κινήσεως μέρος (p. 218 Mor.). Here 
the context indicates that σημεῖα, σχήματα. and τοιοῦτόν 
TL μέρος κινήσεως are meant to include all varieties of 
divisions in the dance, from the smallest unit to the 
largest, by no means restricting σημεῖα to the smallest. 
The next section of Aristides begins: πρῶτος μὲν οὖν 


" 7 ἃ κ᾿ - 
ἐστι χρόνος ἄτομος καὶ ἔλαχιστος, OS καὶ σημεῖον καλεῖ- 


ται. Aristides, then, applied the term σημεῖον to the 
πρῶτος ypovos; and he goes on to explain that this use 
of σημεῖον is analogous to that in geometry, the πρῶτος 
χρόνος, like the ‘point,’ being ἀμερης. οὗτος δὲ ὁ ἀμερὴς 
μονάδος οἱονεὶ χώραν ἔχει" θεωρεῖται γὰρ ἐν μὲν λέξει περὶ 
συλλαβήν, ἐν δὲ μέλει περὶ φθόγγον ἢ περὶ ἕν διάστημα, 
ἐν δὲ κινήσει σώματος περὶ ἕν σχῆμα. Either here is a 
partial confusion of thought, or else what looks like that 
is merely the result of his brevity. The latter is more 
probable, and in that case the explanation would be this. 
Aristides distinctly does not say that this use of σημεῖον 
is borrowed trom geometry, but only that it is analogous 
to the use in geometry. His phrase is καθὸ καὶ οἱ 
γεωμέτραι TO παρά σφισιν ἀμερὲς σημεῖον προσηγόρευσαν: 
geometers and writers on rhythm have used the same 
term fora similar reason. Nor does ἀμερής necessarily 
mean indivisible, or without parts in the mathematical 
sense ; the application of it in that sense to so large a 
portion of time as the πρῶτος χρόνος would be very 
strange. It is merely undivided, treated as one. Our 
term for the geometer’s σημεῖον is point, a word of very 
different associations. It would be rather absurd for us 
to apply this to so long a time-interval as that of a sylla- 
ble; but of course we must not without specific warrant 
connect with the σημεῖον of the rhythmici that notion of 





148 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


minuteness which we connect with the word point in 
geometry, since point is merely our modern substitute 
for the Greek geometer’s σημεῖον. And finally the 
phrases περὶ φθόγγον ἢ περὶ ἕν διάστημα and περὶ ἕν 
σχῆμα almost absolutely negative the restriction of ση- 
μεῖον in rhythm to the primary time alone. If that 
restriction’ was intended, it is strange that we find 
neither βραχεῖαν with συλλαβήν nor any corresponding 
restrictive word to show that σημεῖον was applied to the 
shortest note alone or the smallest interval of the scale 
or the shortest dance-figure alone. It seems far more 
probable that Aristides applied the term to any undivided 
time-interval such as Aristoxenos called a χρόνος ποδικός, 
So understood, his remarks here accord with our previous 
results; and in the sentence first quoted in this paragraph 
the antecedent of ἅ is probably τοῖς σχήμασι καὶ τοῖς 
τούτων πέρασι as one idea, equivalent to “ the various 
dance-figures with their distinctly marked limits.” One 
other remark, however, does not so accord in its present 
form. At the end of 16 (Ὁ, 38 f. Mb.) Aristides explains 
the name παίων διάγυιος for — ὦ — by saying: δεάγυιος 
μὲν οὖν εἴρηται οἷον δίγυιος (δύο yap χρῆται σημείοις). 
As it stands, the last clause fits no interpretation of on- 
μεῖα that I am acquainted with. If we assume one o7- 
μεῖον for thesis and one for arsis and in no other sense 
does the παίων διάγυιος contain two only — then every 
foot is equally δέγυιος and the name δεάγυιος is in no way 
distinctive. The foot — vu — may be called “ two-limbed” 
naturally enough, but only by virtue of having two 
equal long syllables disposed symmetrically in relation 
to the central short, one or either side. Something like 
that the explanatory parenthesis must originally have 
said; but what the original wording was it is vain to 


oness 
guess. 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 149 


(7) Marius Vict. contributes another slender ray of 
light. Early in his section on feet he inserts the sen- 
tence (p. 43 K.): Σημεῖον autem veteres χρόνον, id est 
tempus, non absurde dixerunt ex eo, quod signa quae- 
dam accentuum, quae Greci προσῳδίας vocant, syllabis ad 
declaranda temporum spatia superponuntur, unde tempora 
signa Greci dixerunt. If we take χρόνον as meaning 
χρόνον ποδικόν, this not only agrees with Aristoxenos 
but supplies a more probable explanation than that of 
Aristides as to how this use of σημεῖον arose. Marks 
indicating rhythmic times were no less truly musical 
in character than those which we know as accents, indi- 
‘ating pitch; the name προσῳδίαι, accentus, naturally 
enough included both. The practice of using such 
marks of time when needed (as in the Seikilos epitaph, 
Jan., p. 452) led to calling the times σημεῖα. Our word 
‘note’ has undergone a similar transfer of meaning. 

In addition to these two positive arguments in favor 
of this understanding of Aristoxenos’s χρόνοι ποδικοί, 
there is, thirdly, a negative consideration of some value. 
That understanding of the matter, though it does not of 
itself solve the remaining half of the problem — namely, 
what were the χρόνοι ποδικοί in the compound feet ? — at 
least introduces no greater difficulty than other interpreta- 
tions. Rather it seems to me to point towards a solution. 
But sufficient evidence for a really satisfactory solution 
probably does not exist. For that and other reasons 
a more detailed examination of the question is beyond 
the scope of this chapter, the object of which is to obtain 
a clear conception of what the Greeks, and in particular 
Aristoxenos, understood to constitute the essential nature 
of the ordinary feet. That appears to me to be the basis, 
or an essential part of the basis, on which must rest our 
understanding of individual meters, which latter we must 





150 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


understand, if we would truly know the Greek poets on 
the side of their poetic form. 

The next point made by Aristoxenos in characterizing 
the foot is its division into arsis and thesis, and the relation 
of these to each other. The paragraph is quoted and 
discussed in the preceding chapter (p. 110 f.). Further, 
among the ποδικαὶ διαφοραί, or modes in which feet 
differ, the second and third depend on γένος, as deter- 
mined by the ratio between arsis and thesis (298 Mor.). 
The ratio 2:2 marks the dactylic class, that of 1: 2 
the iambic, that of 2:3 the paionic; and over against 
these three classes as one group, that of the rational 
feet, are set the irrational feet as another group. Also, 
frag. 11 from Psellos reads: ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ 
φύσει ὁ ποδικὸς λόγος ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου τὸ 
σύμφωνον. The comparison is just, and is one phase of 
the same fact which was emphasized on an earlier page, 
that rhythm and tune are alike in having to do with fairly 
simple ratios, which a trained ear can recognize and 
estimate in the one case no less than in the other. Two 
notes produced by strings vibrating at the same rate are 
in unison; if the vibrations are to each other as one to 
two, we have the concord of the octave; if as two to 
three, we have the concord of the fifth. These are the 
primary and perfect concords, corresponding to the 
ratios between arsis and thesis in the fundamental 
ational feet. In contrast with these rational feet the 
indeterminate ratio between arsis and thesis does indeed 
mark a distinction in character; but in two important 
respects the rational and irrational feet belong together. 
First, irrational feet were employed only in connection 
with the rational, not forming by themselves irrational 
meters (which would be simply unrhythmical) but 
mingled with the rational and so varying the too 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 151 


monotonous flow. It is true we nowhere find this 
explicitly stated in our fragments; but so many things 
imply it that one can hardly doubt it. Secondly, the 
irrational feet were themselves classed in γένη corre- 
sponding to those of the rational feet with which the 
irrational feet were used, and were named _ accord- 
ingly. ‘This is a reasonable inference from such a dis- 
tinct example as the description in Aristides Q. (p. 39 
Mb.) of the ἄλογος yopetos ἰαμβοειδής and τροχαιοειδής. 
Nomenclature probably varied on this as on so many 
other points; but it is in no way inconsistent with the 
letter or spirit of what we have from Aristoxenos to 
speak of irrational iambi, trochees, dactyls, anapests, 
and so on. In practice much confusion and misunder- 
standing would be avoided if all would use such terms 
with care, observing strictly the character of the rational 
feet among which the irrational ones occur, and never 
applying the term spondee, e. g., without qualification, 
to an irrational trochee or iambus, or the term dactyl to 
the irrational choree of Aristides. 

The importance of arsis and thesis in the Greek theory, 
the distinctness with which they were felt as constituent 
and essential portions of the foot, carried with it important 
consequences. It explains why a foot-time occupied by 
a single prolonged syllable was to them not a foot; while 
to us, in our music, a whole measure so occupied by a 
single note is as true and normal a measure as any, and 
this in spite of the fact that modern musicians distinguish 
arsis and thesis in the measure, naming them in Greek 
fashion and with the Greek names. The division is real ; 
but the development of music independently of verse has 
left that division in the background, while to the Greeks 
it loomed in the foreground very large. It explains also 
why the ancients felt no need of what appears to us a very 





152 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


creat simplification, for modern music indispensable — I 
mean the method of so dividing into feet or measures 
that each measure begins with a down-beat. Without 
that our music would be intolerable complicated. The 
adoption of that method may be placed on a par, in the 
development of music, with the invention of the musical 
staff: the substitution of the Arabic numerals for the 
Greek or Roman was an advance of similar kind, and 
not so very much greater, in arithmetic. But to the 
Greeks arsis and thesis were no less distinct entities 
than the foot; they were so far independent that within 
the foot one order for those parts was as good as the 
other. If therefore a line began with an up-beat, the 
natural thing seemed to be to regard that and the follow- 
ing down-beat as a foot, and so divide the rest of the line; 
if another rhythm in the same class, iambic say, began 
with a thesis, then it was equally natural to put with it the 
following arsis for the first foot, and divide the whole on 
that basis. Do not the darkness and the light make a 
complete day no less than the light and the darkness ? 
Then too there were differences of ethos and of treatment 
between rhythms that began with an arsis and those of the 
same class but beginning with athesis. Those differences 
demanded a partially separate description of such rhythms, 
and were a positive ground, for them amply sufficient, for 
the differentiation in the division into feet. Like ditferen- 
ces of ethos and treatment are present in our music, but 
the Greeks made more of them than we do. ‘They can 
all be described no less readily and simply under our 


svstem of division into measures, which gets rid of some 


complications inseparable from the ancient method. 
Take as a simple example the paroemiac line as sung, 1n 


ἔστ᾽ ἂν παμφεγγεῖς ἄστρων 


ῥιπὰς λεύσσω O€ TOO ἡμαρ. 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 153 


By the ancient theory the syllables δὲ τόδ᾽ #- are plainly 
an anapest. But -μαρ is a thesis; by omission of the 
intervening arsis, needful to make a complete foot, the 
preceding anapest is changed. The syllable #- becomes 
a tetraseme, in this case not a ποδικὸς χρόνος but αὐτῆς 
τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιος, extending beyond the limit of its 
proper foot. Thus arises an abnormal anapest ὦ ὦ (9, 
equivalent in time to an ionic a minore, though any 
ancient, whether metricus or rhythmicus, would have 
called it simply an anapest. If now we compare this 
peculiar anapest, tas ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας διαιρέσεις, 
with τὰ τὴν τοῦ ποδὸς δύναμιν φυλάσσοντα σημεῖα. which, 
as Aristoxenos says, διαμένει ἴσα ὄντα καὶ τῷ ἀριθμῷ καὶ 
τῷ μεγέθει, we have the dividing line between the nor- 
mal fundamental feet occurring in the middle of the 
syllable. All this is intelligible enough to one who is 
accustomed to the Greek way of looking at it; but such 
a person no longer realizes how very confusing it is to a 
beginner. Yet this is one of the simplest of such cases. 
By our method of division into measures the difficulty 
vanishes, and the line becomes —!— —!— Uv lul_. 
The character of the rhythm is the same, the ear receives 
it as the same, under either method. The results of 
addition, multiplication, or division of numbers were the 
same under Greek or Roman notation as under the 
Arabic. But the difference in convenience is great in 
favor of the Arabic. Yet it must in fairness be added 
that one may not unreasonably doubt whether, all things 
considered, starting as we do with the Greek termin- 
ology and traditional method well established, the 
change to the method of our music would really simplify 
doctrine. Personally I think it would, if the change 
were once carried through. The practical advantage 
in so dividing as to make each foot begin with the 





bear on 
already 
} necessity of cons 
to the ancients and reinterpreting their statements into 
the new form would furnish a new source of difficulty for 
the student, and that difficulty should not be underrated. 


Meantime, our first object is to understand the ancient 


System : there has been too little recognition of the mah- 


ner and degree in which the rest of the system has been 
shaped by the conception of arsis and thesis. 

Later definitions and descriptions of the foot, in 
Greek and Latin metrici, are mostly in pretty close 
agreement with that of Aristoxenos. Aristides Q. 
(p. 34 Mb.) has this: Ποὺς μὲν οὖν ἐστι μέρος τοῦ παντὸς 


ῥυθμοῦ, δι’ οὗ τὸν ὅλον καταλαμβάνομεν. τούτου δὲ μέρη 


δύο, ἄρσις καὶ θέσις. Among the definitions discussed 
by Hoerschelmann (Ein gr. Lehrbuch der Metrik, pp. 
25 ff.) are these: Πούς ἐστι μετρικὴ συλλαβῶν θέσις 
[σύνθεσις ] ἀπὸ δύο ἕως ὃξ ἐξ ὧν γνωρίζομεν τὸ τοῦ μέτρου 
εἶδός τε καὶ μέγεθος. Also πούς ἐστι μετρικὸν σύστημα 
συλλαβῶν ἐν αἷς γνωρίζομεν τὸ τοῦ μέτρου εἶδός τε καὶ 
μέγεθος. Hephaistion gives us no definition of the foot, 
but only statements of what combinations of syllables 
make up the several feet. The same is true of most of 
the Latin metricias far as they are extant; but in Marius 
Vict. we find (p. 43 K): Pes est certus modus sylla- 
barum, quo cognoscimus totius metri speciem, composi- 
tus ex sublatione et positione. It is clear that all these, 
so far as they go, are but near or remote echoes of Aris- 


It is not too much to say that 
tant definitions of the foot 
ining any sound principle, 
enumeration of syllables and 


assume as the essence of the foot one thing, 


y, its function of marking and making intelligible 
the character of the rhythm. | 

On the other hand, no ancient definition says anything 
explicitly about that which most modern writers take as 
the very basis, namely stress. For example, Christ 
(Metrik?, § 69): Bei jedem Fuss oder Takt unter- 
scheidet man zwei Theile, den guten Takttheil, der 
mit verstiirkter Stimme gesprochen wird, und den 
schlechten Takttheil, bei dem die Intention der Stimme 
nachlisst. Durch das Zeitverhaltniss, das zwischen den 
beiden Takttheilen stattfindet, bestimmt sich die beson- 
dere Eigenschaft des Fusses. Es definiren daher auch 
die Rhythmiker, nach dem Fragm. Paris. 6, den Fuss 
mit: ὁ ποὺς λόγος τίς ἐστιν ἐν χρόνοις κείμενος. Christ 
is here, as usual, nearer to the ancients than many mod- 
erns are; yet the essence of his statement lies in the 
‘verstiirkte Stimme’ on a ‘ good’ or ‘strong’ part of the 
foot and a remission of stress in pronouncing another 
part, that is by comparison ‘ poor’ or ‘light’ or ‘ weak.’ 
In like manner Westphal (Rhythmik, p. 103): Da- 
mit die αἴσθησις eine solche Gruppe als Ganzes 
erfasst, ist es nothig, dass ein einzelnes Zeitmoment 
derselben vor den iibrigen durch eine stirkere Inten- 
sion, einen gewichtvolleren Ictus, hervorgehoben werde. 
Dieser verleiht ihr denselben Halt, wie dem Worte der 
Wortaeccent, und deshalb redet man auch von einem 
rhythmischen Accente. On this basis also Gleditsch 


(Miiller’s Handbuch, 113, p. 688) defines the foot: Die 





156 OHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


kleine Gruppe von Grundzeiten welche durch eine on- 
μασία zur Einheit verbunden werden, bildet einen Fuss, 
πούς. pes. Gleditsch’s expression in the p! receding par- 
agraph, “stirker hervorgehoben,” is indeed capable of 
being understood in a figurative sense; but I think no 
injustice is done in attributing to him the usually 
accepted equation, σημασία, percussio, ictus, = stress, 
marked by a down-beat. 

This view and these terms are of course perfectly 
applicable in modern English and German verse, though 
even here they are partial and have greatly misled ; 
but to transfer them to Greek verse is unwarranted 
and most distorting. ‘There are indeed several ancient 
definitions of feet that go beyond mere enumeration 
of the constituent syllables, but stop short of the full 
statement of the function of feet. These, like the one 
quoted by Christ, center in the division into arsis and 
thesis, up- beat and down-beat, ‘sublatio’ or ‘ elevatio’ 
and ‘positio’ or ‘depositio,’ and assume a regular beat- 
ing of time by movement of the foot, or sometimes of 
the hand or finger, which beating of time has for its 
object the measuring off into the characteristic feet and 
kola, for speaker or listener or both, of the entire series 
of times intended. These definitions therefore clearly 
involve, though they do not explicitly state it, the Aris- 
toxenean view as to the function of the foot. But they 

say nothing explicitly about good and bad, heavy and 
light, stressed and unstressed portions. 5o far Kaw- 
ezynski and Bennett and Schultz, in the places above 
referred to (pp. 82 and 53), are right. 5o much must 
be granted, whether one goes the rest of the way with 
them or not. It is impossible to escape the inference 
that in Greek verse at least, if not also in Latin verse, 
either there was no regular and constant variation in 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 157 


stress between arsis and thesis, or such variation was so 
slight that the Greeks were hardly or not at all conscious 
of it. In describing their verse the Greeks made nothing 
of such variation, and gave it no distinct place in their 
scientific or artistic theory of verse. At the very least, 
modern writers give to accent in the sense of stress, not 
only in modern verse but in ancient verse and music, 
vastly greater prominence than any ancient assigns to it. 
And even in modern verse and music, unprejudiced ex- 
amination of the numerous and manifold cases in which 
rhythm is perfect without any possible variation in stress, 
and others in which a particular rhythm preserves its 
essential character under a distinct change of relative 
stresses, will show that more weight has been assigned 
to this element than is due. The results of psychologi- 
cal experiments along this line must be received with 
two deductions. First, as Bennett points out, all the 
subjects are necessarily persons much accustomed to 
rhythms of heavy stress and very little accustomed to 
rhythms in which stress is nearly or quite lacking. 
What results would be obtained with ancient Greek 
subjects we cannot know. It is quite possible they 
might be different. Secondly, starting with the tacit 
assumption that stress is essential, experimenters have 

almost confined their investigation to stress-rhythms, un- 
consciously ignoring other large classes, like the rhythms 
of motion appealing to the eye alone, or those produced 
by uniform continuous sound, like a musical note ona 
pipe organ, interrupted as briefly as possible at regularly 
varying intervals. These last approach far more nearly 
to the rhythms of ancient Greek speech, as the ancients 
describe them, than do any on which psychological experi- 
ments have been made, so far as these have come to my 
notice. In modern music the immense importance of 





CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRI 


stress-accent to expression makes it diffic to separate 
in thought the elements that are intimately united in 
Ἰ 


actual rendering. Βαῦ sucha separation must be insisted 


on; without it scientific analysis halts half way. And 


L u 


if one will listen to the playing of any simple composi- 
ll, it will be- 


tion on a pipe-organ without use of the swe 
come evident that stress is not always essential to rhythm 
even in our music. The rhythm is unmistakable in such 
playing, though variation in stress is impossible. 

The primary and essential notion which the ancients 
connected with the terms σημασία and ictus, and with 
the more common terms θέσις. ἄρσις, βάσις, ὁ κάτω OY ἄνω 
χρόνος, βαίνεται ὁ ῥυθμός, and with percutere, percussio, 
ferire, and the rest, was that of beating time. Νὸ extant 
passage expressly states that the down-beat of hand or 
foot was accompanied by increased stress in utterance. 
Whether we, with our relatively great use of variation 
in stress in speaking modern languages, can properly 
maintain the rhythm and make it distinct to our hearers 
of like habit, without a similar, even though slighter, 
employment of stress in reading ancient verse, is one 
question; whether the ancients regularly made such a 
use of stress is another question. And the latter nar- 
rows down to these two questions: First, is there any 
extant passage in which greater stress in thesis 15 neces- 
sarily implied ? Secondly, is there from any other source 
a warrant for assuming slightly greater stress in thesis, 
even though ancient writers did not recognize it? Of 
course, also, we must not confuse Greek with Latin 
usage; the two may have been different in this regard. 
We have respectable evidence that Latin word-accent 
included a certain amount of stress, while for classical 
Greek nothing of the sort has been shown. It is prim- 
arily Greek that we are now considering. Without 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 159 


attempting to review in detail the controversial articles 
of Bennett and Hendrickson, it will conduce to brevity if 
we start from the arguments of the latter (A. J. P.., 1899, 
vol. xx, pp. 198-210). 

The passage from Aristoxenos (§ 17) τῶν δὲ ποδῶν 
οἱ μὲν ἐκ δύο χρόνων σύγκειται, τοῦ τε ἄνω καὶ τοῦ 
κάτω (1. c., p. 199) is misinterpreted by Hendrickson ; 
χρόνος does not here mean χρόνος πρῶτος, as was shown 
above (p. 184 ff). Aristoxenos does not admit the 
existence of the pyrrhic, because the δίσημον μέγεθος 
παντελῶς ἂν ἔχοι πυκνὴν THY ποδικὴν σημασίαν. Νοίῃίησ 
can be found in these words beyond the simple statement 
that the alternation of down-beat and up-beat, thesis and 
arsis, within the δίσημον μέγεθος would be altogether too 
frequent; hence feet of that magnitude are not used. 
In other words, as a unit of measurement for the whole 
rhythm such a foot would be too small; for sucha rhythm 
feet of the τετράσημον μέγεθος are a far more convenient 
unit. Exactly the same thing is true of modern music ; 
if very rarely, to produce a special effect, or by way of 
experiment, a composer has employed 2 time, the excep- 
tion is of a sort to prove the soundness of the general 
rule, which excludes 2 time, — not as impossible, but as 
inconvenient and forced. The same series of times is 
more naturally grouped in ¢ or 3 time, which are therefore 
universally preferred. This is quite independent of the 
nature of ictus; and we have seen that our musical 
rhythms may be perfectly distinct without stress, 
Complete elimination of stress in rendering a composition 
of considerable length would make it seem to us tame 
and expressionless; but the rhythm would still be 
perfectly clear. Bennett is quite right, then, in refusing 
to see in this passage of Aristoxenos anything to show 
that σημασία implied stress. 





160 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Nor is Hendrickson’s treatment of Aristoxenos § 4 
any more convincing (1. ¢., pp. 200 ff.). The inter- 
pretation of the passage is discussed at length above 
(pp. 101-104), where the inadequacy of Westphal’s 
illustration is pointed out. But even if it were admitted 
that the words of Aristoxenos are to be understood in 
the restricted sense which Westphal adopted, still it 
must be borne in mind that such ambiguous combinations 
always had a context that was not ambiguous. The 
rhythmic character established by that unambiguous 
context was without difficulty carried over to and 
through the portion that would otherwise have been 
doubtful. This is equally true whether ictus included 
stress or not. Nothing is better settled by psychological 
experiments in this field than the fact that the mind 
tends to imagine a rhythmical grouping where none is 
objectively present; and the character of the imaginary 
grouping is easily affected by slight suggestions from 
accompanying circumstances. Similar ambiguities are 
frequent in English verse, and they are resolved in the 
way described. One can easily find, in so perfect a 
versifier as Tennyson, plenty of lines in which the 
rhythm at the beginning is made clear only by the closing 
words of the line. In this case the reader automatically 
looks ahead, solves the problem, and usually so puts the 
stress, in accordance with his solution, that a listener 
perceives no ambiguity. But in many cases it is not 
difficult to preserve such a balance of stress on the 
rhythmically doubtful phrase as will practically, for the 
moment, eliminate stress, and leave the situation substan- 
tially what it was in Greek if stress was perfectly level. 
The listener, then, if he be sensitive to rhythm, feels the 
momentary ambiguity, but at once resolves it In memory 
when the succeeding portion makes that possible. The 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 161 


total effect is pleasing rather than otherwise; it is 
somewhat analogous to the effect in our polyphonic 
music when the milder discords are resolved into per- 
fect concords. I see no reason, so far as this passage 
is concerned, why this may not have been the case in 
Greek rhythm. 

And in these cases of a considerable succession of 
short syllables, as well as in the case of the dipodic 
grouping of pure trochees or iambi, which Hendrickson 
next adduces (1. ὁ... p. 202 f.), one principle which 
Hendrickson overlooks must by no means be left out of 
view. Exceedingly minute variations in length would 
be as effective in causing a particular rhythmic grouping 
as variation in stress. A quantitative difference of a few 
thousandths of a second would suffice, and would not in 
the least interfere with the sense that the adjacent short 
syllables were substantially equal, and that the ratios 
appropriate to the particular rhythms were preserved 
with satisfactory precision. And in the ordinary iambic 
trimeter and trochaic tetrameter there was in fact a 
marked quantitative difference of that sort, in that the 
alternate foot might be irrational, and was irrational in a 
large fraction of the cases. Since the common type was 
a dipody of one pure and one irrational trochee or iambus, 
and this dipody in all recitative and in much of the melic 
verse of this class was constantly recurring, the ancient 
reader or listener could not but form unconsciously the 
habit of expecting it. The dipodic grouping, thus 
marked, was mentally associated with all iambic and 
trochaic verse; dipodies, and even whole lines, in which 
the irrational syllable did not occur would yet be grouped 
unconsciously in the same way; and it is by no means 
improbable that in rendering such dipodies and lines a 


faint suggestion of the irrationality, in other words a 
11 


Ὁ eM lar Ih snd Ὲ Seta 
Bi τ μοτρψεόδα τς nie ween 





So 7k σοὶ ον 


matin ny ar ἐν, 





02 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


minute variation in length, was made or imagined. So 
far as I can now analyze the process in my own mind — 
the process was practically complete before this question 


presented itself to me — the above is a true account οἱ 
τ. That “there is but one principle by which such 
grouping can take place, and that is intensity on the 


one or the other of the elements of the group,” must 
be emphatically denied. In short, of positive evidence 
for increased stress in thesis in Greek verse there is 
none, so far as I can see, that will bear critical exami- 
nation. 

As regards Latin the situation appears to me some- 
what different. Not that the positive evidence from the 
grammarians 1s really any stronger; for nothing ad- 
duced by Hendrickson appears to me fully convincing by 
itself. ‘All the writers on metric were so strongly under 
the influence of the Greek theory that we cannot expect 
to find in them any view that was not found in their 
originals or models, anything due wholly to first-hand 
observation of Latin speech. But if the word-accent, 
though mainly a pitch-accent, contained also a distinct 
stress-element, then the Romans were accustomed in 
daily speech to regular variation in stress, to slightly 
‘nereased stress on certain fixed syllables. This varia- 
tion in stress was certainly not so great as to prevent, or 
render unnatural, the adoption of the quantitative prin- 
ciple as the basis of versification among the cultivated 
classes, powerfully influenced as they were by Greek 
letters. Compared with English, the Latin stress was 
fairly to be called level; every syllable was clearly enun- 
ciated; the rhythmizing impulse could apparently have 
dealt with the language pretty satisfactorily on either 
basis. so nearly were the stress-principle and the quanti- 
tative principle balanced, in the period when the pre- 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 163 


dominance of Greek culture turned the scale. But the 
adoption of either principle left the other still in the 
language, a positive factor in pronunciation of verse as 
well as prose. In English, German, and Italian the 
word-accent, strongly stressed in the first two, less 
strongly in the last, is the more prominent in versifica- 
tion; but quantity, which is simply time of pronuncia- 
tion, is not thereby eliminated from the verse, and 
cannot be wholly disregarded by the poet or his reader, 
though it is in general subordinated. To say, as Bennett 
does (A.J. P., vol. XX, p. 413), that Latin verse could 
not be both quantitative and accentual, that a line could 
not be felt simultaneously as 


and as 


ἜΧΕ ΧΙ Slee a a be oe eS 


is clearly erroneous. Finding no difficulty myself in so 
rendering and feeling it, and in teaching pupils to 
render it so, I see no difficulty in supposing that a 
Roman could do the same. Still farther, there is no im- 
possibility or intrinsic improbability, so far as I can see, 
in the supposition of a rhythm distinctly and primarily 
quantitative, accompanied by a slight stress on the 
down-beat, and yet containing a small number of slightly 
stressed word-accents in arsis, in a certain degree of con- 
flict with the regular ictus. I say conflict, not shrink- 
ing from the stronger form of expression; but a better 
phrase would be, alongside of yet not interfering with 
the ictus. There are plenty of illustrations of this in 
English verse; but these can be cited convincingly only 
with the living voice, for the argument rests wholly on 





164 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


the manner of rendering! The conflict between the 
two in Latin was certainly not so sharp as to make Ver- 


gil’s versification otherwise than pleasing and natural; 


but in all periods, from Plautus down, the Romans 
appear to have felt some conflict, if in rhythmically 
uncertain or less certain combinations the word-accent 
was too much out of agreement with the rhythmic beats. 
The precise degree in which that feeling influenced con- 
sciously the verse-construction may be and is disputed ; 
that the feeling was there and had some influence 
appears to be beyond question. In Greek of the classi- 
cal age there is no trace of such a feeling; the evidence 
for it in Catullus and Horace, as well as in Plautus, is 
very strong. In the light of this it is reasonable to give 
more weight, as regards Latin, to general considerations 
drawn from modern experiments. 

This must be made clearer by examples. In the tri- 
meter of Terence discussed by Cesius Bassus (p. 556 f. 
K.; see Hendrickson, 1. ¢., p. 208), 


Some examples of what I mean are: 

To bend with apples the moss’d cottage-trees. (Keats.) 

But kiss’d it and then fled, as Thou mightest in dream. (Shelley.) 
There is sweet music here that softer falls 

Than petals from blown roses on the grass, 

Or night-dews on still waters between walls. (Tennyson.) 

Our father’s kingdom, because pure, is safe. 

The sweetest harp-p/ayer in Catana. 

Looks once and drives e/sewhere, and leaves its last employ. 


Over the (it sea’s unquiet way. (M. Arnold.) 


Of course it is possible to say that these are bad lines. To that one 
can only reply, Is it likely that the objector is a better judge, in a 
matter of verse-technic, than poets who were so well-trained and so 
successful in the practice of the art as those quoted? At any rate, 
they deemed such combinations of ictus and accent legitimate, and the 
examples illustrate my point. 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 
Exclusit, revocat, redeam? non, sime obsecret, 


every word-accent coincides with a down-beat. Now the 
phraseology of Bassus does not of itself, to my mind, 
necessarily mean more than that beating time keeps one 
clearly in the iambic movement (the line was not isolated, 
but stood with other senarii), so that the “long ” syllables 
in arsis were unhesitatingly made irrational and the line 
was felt to be a senarius and not dactylic. But we can- 
not suppose that the slightly greater stress which would 
in prose accompany the word-accent was wholly elimin- 
ated when those accents coincided with the down-beat. 
Rather the indisputable sympathetic influence of one set 
of muscles upon the other would tend to strengthen the 
inclination already present; that is, the more forcible 
down-beat of the foot, with the sound of the blow, would 
tend to increase the inclination to pronounce with more 
force the accented syllable that accompanied the blow. 
And this particular line is merely one very good illus- 
tration of a rather common phenomenon, common 
enough to show the tendency referred to above, to make 
accent and ictus fall on the same syllable, in places 
where otherwise the rhythm would not be sufficiently 
clear. A notable case is furnished by Horace, Carm. III 
12, in which no word-accent is allowed to fall elsewhere 
than on one of the three beats of the ionic foot. Of 
course, as regards the accented longs, that is inevitable 
and of no significance ; but in the case of the two shorts 
it is otherwise. And though in the sixteen lines of the 
poem there are twenty-one instances of an accented short 
penult or antepenult, in every instance that accented 
short syllable is the former of the pair which the meter 
requires, never the latter. It is hard to see any reason 
why Horace never made that pair consist of the final 


RP eae a os 


es 


sca A Sasa fale asa τ τσῳ Br paid meh 1 aa ohm 
we canes Sala στους ace aaa 





166 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


short of one word and the accented short of a following 
‘ambic word, unless it was a desire to make the word- 
accent a help rather than a hindrance to the perception 
of the rhythm, since this was an unusual one in Latin. 
In the very next ode, for example, also containing six- 
teen lines, but with only twenty-four pairs of short syl- 


yy an ac- 
oOo F£ 


cented short initial syllable In Cid. Tyr. 483-012, or 


consisting of a short final syllable followed 


lables against forty pairs in II 12, there are three pairs 
I 
᾿ 


in the Persians 66-116, in substantially the same meter 
as Horace III 12, there is no trace of such a law as 
Horace observed. In (Ed. Tyr. 483-496, for example, 
one strophe only, and excluding some cases that one 
might question, there are thirteen pairs of short syllables 
‘n which the former is unaccented and the latter 
accented. 


The conclusion is at present for me 





FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 167 


quantitative flow; but in more complex or less familiar 
combinations he felt obliged to shun such disagreements, 
or admit them cautiously. 

It is true that if we had no other evidence for stress 
in the word-accent, this would be reasoning in a circle ; 
but since comparative philology brings excellent testi- 
mony for that from quite another field,! the above con- 
clusion really rests on three independent pieces of 
evidence, no one of them sufficient alone, but all har- 
monizing and supporting one another, and forming 
together a strong argument. In regard to Greek verse 
I can find only one of these three pieces of evidence for 
stress, namely, that sympathetic influence of one set of 
muscles upon another. This is derived from modern 
observation and experiment, and is not convincing alone. 
We must beware of pressing this too far upon a people 
who were certainly far more accustomed than we are to 
rhythms in which stress was weak or lacking. 

As to our own practice in reading Latin and Greek 
verse, we may safely go as far toward eliminating stress 

destroying either our consciousness 


ivthm or our hearer’s perception of it. If one 
. rhythm and duly bringing out 
} 


the same time indicate without 


ner those word-accents that do 











ε 
ς. 


μῴοτε 


a 


} 
i 


ἣν 


λ 


ene 


᾿ 
4 


“~ 
t+ 
~ 
a 











Thich G. 
κύκλιον, 

W estphal (I 
26) cites the passages an 
tion of the rhapsodes. Accordingly he 
strong confirmation of his theory of a radical distinction 
between verse that was spoken and verse that was sung. 
The Homeric poems were recited, not sung. Dionysios 
tells us that in these hexameters from the Odyssey the 
long syllables are not τέλειοι, but ἄλογοι, shorter than 
the complete long, some of the dactyls not differing 
much in duration from trochees. Therefore, it is ar- 
gued, recitative hexameters in general were less than 
four-timed. Κύκλιος, cyclic, may well have been an 
ancient descriptive epithet for these rapid, incommensur- 
able, and variable dactyls. Also, as Dionysios has pre- 
viously cited Aristoxenos, and cites him alone of the ῥυθ- 
μικοί by name, and here attributes this doctrine to the 
ῥυθμικοί, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that his 





- eet reform cea ease aati ty 


ASI point iirst, there 1s no prool 


nly a possibility, which may 


loctrine is found reasonable 
teaching, that Aris- 
toxenos 18 1n 15 case ie source. There were certainly 


with his known 


other ῥυθμικοί; we have seen, for example (p. 12 f.), that 
the time-scale of consonant, short vowel, long vowel, 
cited from the ῥυθμικοί as a rule of universal application, 
cannot have been taught in that form by Aristoxenos, be- 
cause a mind so keen and logical would have seen the 
patent inconsistency of that scale with the fundamental 
principles of his rhythmical system as applied to lan- 
guage. And in this case the name Aristoxenos occurs a 
long way back, in chapter 14, in connection with the 
description and classification of sounds. The bridge of 
argument is pretty slender and slippery from so distant 
a mention of Aristoxenos under the specific title of 
ὁ μουσικός, there employed, to the conclusion that the 
general term οἱ ῥυθμικοί in 17, amid the discussion of 
another topic, means the same man. 

Again in the passage from 17 three points are to be 
noted. First, the term κύκλον is not applied to the 
dactyl, but to a variety of the anapest, which Dionysios 
says these rhythmici separate from strict anapests. That 


PaaS AA RPT RE ih pe ete 


SAPS MO ΠΤ ΤΊΣ 





172 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


they, or that Dionysios, applied the term to a class of 
dactyls also is not stated nor in any way implied. While 
not improbable, it is not proved, nor safely to be inferred 
from this passage alone. Nor, by the way, do we get 
elsewhere any hint that Aristoxenos knew of more 
than one class of either dactyls or anapezests. Secondly, 
the anapzests quoted in illustration can hardly be recita- 
tive, if the form γᾶν is right. What warrant had West- 
phal, who accepted that reading, for assuming that these 
anapests were not melic? And Dionysios evidently 
regarded them as parallel to the dactyls under discussion 
(ἀντίστροφόν τινα τούτῳ pvOuov) in every particular save 
the order of arsis and thesis. This does not look like 
a sharp separation between sung and spoken verse. 
Thirdly, what does τούτου τοῦ ποδός in the line follow- 


. . Ρ . ") T ΩΣ « ‘ > ‘ | »¢ ssumed 
ἣ +X i ter ste ) ι ἶ nle SS a lac una Ve a 5 
ing the hexameter refer t 


a rather violent assumption, the phrase must simply re- 
sume the αὐτοῦ just before the hexameter, the τούτου 
just before that, and the δάκτυλος two lines earlier, 
which immediately follows the phrase of description. 
Also, the quotation is introduced explicitly as an exam- 
ple of the dactyl, without qualification — the ordinary 
dactyl, with no hint that there is any other kind of a 
dactyl. If it is meant as an example of some other than 
the normal dactyl, why is not that normal four-timed 
dactyl mentioned separately? Dionysios is here enum- 
erating and briefly describing all the ordinary feet, clas- 
sified according to the number of syllables, first the 
disyllabic, then the trisyllabic. Feet of more than three 
syllables he does not enumerate, expressly saying that 
he regards them as compounded of these twelve simple 
feet, of πρῶτοι καταμετροῦντες ἅπασαν ἔμμετρον τε καὶ 
ἄμετρον λέξιν, ἐξ ὧν γίνονται στίχοι τε καὶ κῶλα. It is 
true that he is considering prose primarily, but the 


5 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 118 


expressions just quoted show clearly that he recognizes 
no essential difference between the feet according as 
they occur in prose or verse. The difference between 
prose and verse, rhythmically, results wholly from the 
way in which individual feet are combined in one and 
the other. As illustrations therefore of the feet on 
which prose rhythm depends he gives examples from 
verse, merely because in them several of a kind occur 
together. And the closing sentence of the chapter is, 
Kal περὶ μὲν τούτων [1]. 6.. ποδῶν] οὐκ οἷδ᾽ ὅτι δεῖ πλείω 
λέγειν. In other words, he has enumerated and de- 
scribed all the feet of verse, as well as of prose. Where 
is the full four-timed dactyl? Either it is strangely 
omitted, or Dionysios supposed it to be in the hexameter 
quoted. 

Again, the ἄλογος which the rhythmici saw in these 
dactyls is unlike the ἄλογος of Aristoxenos, so far as 
that is known from his pretty full and minute description 
of it examined above (p. 110 ff.), in one particular. 
His irrational syllable is always in arsis; this of the 
rhythmici is a thesis. The difference is important and 
significant. The irrational arsis occurs frequently in 
iambic and trochaic meters, is found in the γένος ἡμιόλιον, 
apparently also among four-timed feet in some circum- 
stances, but its usage is strictly limited; and when every 
thesis remains rational, the precise fundamental ratios 
are never so far hidden or so widely departed from but 
that the whole is felt to be rhythmical. To extend 
irrationality to the thesis, however, is a long step towards 
the unrhythmical. In some way the thesis, whether by 
stress upon it, or by the fact that it was in some meters 
always a long syllable, while in the others long syllables 
were there far less often replaced by shorts than in the 
arsis, or for some farther reason not yet ascertained — 











174 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


the thesis was certainly somehow felt to be the more 
prominent and more fixed portion of the foot. The series 
of θέσεις was in the whole rhythmic design a sort of 
central thread, a firmer pattern beside and along which 
are grouped the more varied ἄρσεις. [It is the latter 
chiefly that provide the needful relief from monotony, 
from an arithmetical precision that would be machine-like 
and repellent. But if in θέσεις also there was such a 
degree of variation from the normal mee ΜΘ oan properly 
be called ἀλογία. little of rhythmic ratio is lett. Much 
rather is it probable that less clear-headed followers of 
Aristoxenos, bringing under his doctrine of ἀλογία, 
where he had not placed it, a phenomenon that we have 
next to consider, extended his term in a way that he 
would not have approved. This phase of the doctrine of 
ἀλογία seems to go with that fallacious time-scale which 
makes any and every consonant equal in time to one halt 
a short vowel. Obviously even in these peculiarly rapid 
hexameters that scale would not only destroy rhythm, 
but would prove them to be really rather slow. put the 
impossibility of practical application of the scale to 
concrete rhythms, and inconsistency with other plain 
facts, weighed little with the advocates of the scale over 
against so pretty an apparent demonstration as they had. 
So in this case. Seeing in these and like verses a real 
difference in rapidity of movement when spoken, as 
compared with other verses in the same class but of 
more clogging collocation of elements, some rhythmi- 
cians, prominent enough to be followed by others, ex- 
tended the principle of ἀλογία to cover the phenomenon. 
But the real explanation of the matter Dionysios gives 
in the second extract. He was a keen critic and rhetori- 
cian; repeatedly, after mentioning a view that looks 
plausible in itself but does not explain the facts quite 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 175 


satisfactorily, he then leaves the theory in the background 
and dwells rather on the facts. This he does here. In 


contrast with the preceding lines, which he has just 


analyzed and shown to harmonize in phonetic structure 
with the slow and labored action there portrayed, in this 
line sounds are combined in a way to favor rapidity of 
utterance. First, the words are longer — no mono- 
syllable, two disyllables, the rest of three and four 
syllables. The fewer breaks between words there are, 
the fewer points of separation. Secondly, of the seventeen 
syllables ten are short. And of the seven long syllables 
not one — except the last — contains more elements than 
are needful to make it pass for long and at the same 
time avoid hiatus; that is, no long vowel or diphthong is 
followed by more than one consonant; two consonants 
occur only where required to extend a short vowel to a 
long syllable. Again, as between words, there is no hiatus, 
no semi-vowel or mute meets a semi-vowel, there is no 
rhetorical pause and no elision, the words almost run 
together into one. And finally there is no one of the 
slower feet, — no spondee and no bacchius, for example, 
except at the end. And even the five dactyls, he adds, 
do not have the complete long, but “ their ἄλογοι are so 
‘chased along’ that some of the feet do not differ much 
from trochees. You see, there is nothing to hinder the 
line, so constructed rhythmically, from being smooth, 
swift, flowing.” 

Clearly, though ἀλογία is made a part of this explana- 
tion, it is to Dionysios but a small part. The other items 
are enough without it. It is also clear that Dionysios 
does not regard even these irrational dactyls as three-timed 
merely; the nearest approach to that view is in the 
remark that some are not much longer than trochees. 
But that implies that even the briefest are somewhat 





176 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


longer than trochees. Here then, at least, 1s no ground 


whatever for the assumption of dactyls in § time. 
Farther light is thrown on the matter by these well- 
known passages from Aristides Q. : | 
(1) Τούτων dn τῶν χρόνων οἱ μὲν ἔρρυθμοι λέγονται, 
οἱ δὲ ἄρρυθμοι., οἱ δὲ ῥυθμοειδεῖς. ἔρρυθμοι μὲν οἱ εν rim 
λόγῳ πρὸς ἀλλήλους σωξζοντες τάξιν, οἷον διπλασίονι, 
ἡμιολίῳ καὶ τοῖς τοιουτοις (λόγος γάρ ἐστι δυο μεγεθῶν 
ὁμοίων ἡ πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσις). ἄρρυθμοι δὲ οἱ παντελῶς 
ἄτακτοι καὶ ἀλόγως συνειρόμενοι, ῥυθμοειδεῖς δὲ οἱ μεταξὺ 
τούτων καὶ πῆ μεν τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἐρρύθμων, πῆ δὲ τῆς 
ταραχῆς τῶν ἀρρυθμων μετειληφότες. τούτων δὲ οὗ μὲν 
στρογγύλοι καλοῦνται οἱ μᾶλλον τοῦ δέοντος ἐπιτρέχοντεϊ, 
οἱ δὲ περίπλεω οἱ πλέον ἢ δεῖ τὴν βραδυτῆτα διὰ συνθέτων 
φθόγγων ποιούμενοι. ἔτι τῶν χρόνων οἱ μὲν ἁπλοῖ. οἱ δὲ 
πολλαπλοῖ. οἱ καὶ ποδικοὶ καλοῦνται. (P. 8551. Mb.) 
(2) “Er τῶν ῥυθμῶν οἱ μὲν ταχυτέρας ποιούμενοι τὰς 
ἀγωγὰς θερμοί τέ εἰσι καὶ δραστήριοι, οἱ δὲ βραδείας καὶ 
ἀνα βεβχλημένας ἀνειμένοι τε καὶ ἡσυχαστικοί" ἔτι δὲ οἱ 
μὲν στρογγύλοι καὶ ἐπίτροχοι σφοδροί τε καὶ συνεστραμ- 
μένοι καὶ εἰς τὰς πράξεις παρακλητικοί, οἱ δὲ περίπλεῳ 
τῶν φθόγγων τὴν σύνθεσιν ἔχοντες ὕπτιοί τέ εἰσι καὶ 
πλαδαρώτεροι, οἱ δὲ μέσοι κεκραμένοι τε ἐξ ἀμφοῖν καὶ 
σύμμετροι τὴν κατάστασιν. (P. 99 1. Mb.) 
The resemblance between these passages and those 
from Dionysios has of course been observed, but views 
have differed as to what conclusions are to be drawn 
from it. So much depends, in these matters, on the 
standpoint from which one approaches the question. If 
we may assume that the whole body of rhythmical 
doctrine was in all details, or nearly all, settled and 
harmonious, and terminology likewise, so that slight 
differences in the latter, as between different writers, 
point with certainty or high probability to real distine- 


© 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 177 


tions of fact, our interpretation in this case will be of 
one sort. If, however, different writers differed consid- 
erably in their terminology, even in some rather impor- 
tant matters, and described the same phenomena not 
infrequently after different fashions, then our procedure 
should be of another sort. That the latter supposition 
is the true one seems to me beyond question. We have 
therefore in such cases to look always beneath the termi- 
nology and examine the phenomena themselves. That 
requires in this case close attention to phraseology and 
to sentence-structure, as well as to context. 

Passage (1) is part of the very brief division of book 
I, beginning with chapter 13, that is devoted to rhythm. 
Chapter 14 begins with the definition of πρῶτος χρόνος 
(discussed above, p. 147 f.); then follow five lines on σύν- 
Geros χρόνος --- twice, thrice, and four times the magni- 
tude of the πρῶτος. Then follows(1). The first words, 
τούτων δὴ τῶν χρόνων. can refer only to the times just 
described — in brief summary, the various time-intervals 
that art is concerned with. Of these, some are ἔρρυθμοι, 
others ἄρρυθμοι, others ῥυθμοειδεῖς. But if some are 
unrhythmical, it appears that the author, in seeking 
brevity, has tacitly extended the range of τούτων τῶν 
χρόνων somewhat, and now is taking into account all 
time-intervals as they present themselves in continuous 
speech. (Aristides of course has in view also the other 
rhythmic arts, but we are considering speech, and his 
language in what follows must have been largely deter- 
mined by peculiarities of speech as a rhythmizomenon.) 
In speech, then, some of the times, in their relations to 
their neighbors, form a perfect rhythm, others a partial, 
shifting, imperfect rhythm. So far the passage is a sin- 
gle sentence,—a fact to be emphasized, because the 
sentence is sometimes printed as three, as by Westphal 

12 





178 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


(Rhythmik, p. 95, and elsewhere), and that changes the 
aspect of certain points. We now ask what times are 


meant by the τούτων which begins the next sentence. 
Are they the ῥυθμοειδεῖς only, or are they the same as 
the τούτων τῶν χρόνων above? Martianus Capella’s 
‘quorum temporum’ does not help at all. 

If the reader will divest himself of preconceived opin- 
ions and read the entire chapter with fresh attention, the 
two possibilities will take this form. First: This τούτων 
merely resumes the τούτων τῶν χρόνων and is again 
repeated in ἔτι τών χρόνων of the last sentence. That is, 
Aristides first defines the individual χρόνοι employed in 
rhythmic art —the πρῶτος, or unit, and the varieties of 
the σύνθετος χρόνος. Then treating these χρόνοι as a 
body, he mentions, in three sentences, one for each, three 
ways of classifying them —three classifications quite in- 
dependent of each other and of that which he assumed in 
his definitions. Indeed, in the third classification, though 
it is not clear precisely what he means by ado? and 
πολλαπλοῖ, it is clear that the ποδικοί do not exclude 
all ἁπλοῖ: that we have in this sentence, not strictly 
three classes made on a common basis, but rather a set 
of three somewhat related epithets applied to χρόνοι to 
indicate certain different and not altogether mutually 
exclusive relations. That state of things in the last 
sentence has a bearing on the other classifications; in 
particular it explains, by the attitude of mind which it 
indicates, what was called above tacitly extending the 
range of τούτων τῶν χρόνων so as to include all χρόνοι of 
continuous speech. What there seemed a comparatively 
slight inaccuracy of expression, excusable in so brief a 
summary, is here seen to be a frank absence of any claim 
that he is describing mutually exclusive classes. Besides 
it must not be forgotten that Aristides is merely making 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 179 


a very brief compilation; we must not expect in any 
such work, however well done, the logical precision of 
an Aristoxenos, writing at ten or twenty times as great 
length on the same topic. Or, secondly: If the τούτων 
refers to ῥυθμοειδεῖς alone, all else that has just been 
said still remains true. We should go beyond the inten- 
tion of Aristides if we insist always on sharp distinctions 
between the classes to which these epithets apply. And 
from the essential nature of language rhythm, ἔρρυθμοι, 
ἄρρυθμοι, ῥυθμοειδεῖς are not and cannot be made mathe- 
matically exact terms. That does not lessen their value 
and utility, if they are not abused. They describe con- 
veniently certain classes of effects that shade impercep- 
tibly into each other. When the ratios between the 
times of a group are few, and reach a sufficient degree 
of regularity, the times, or the group, may be called 
ἔρρυθμος ; if the ratios are too numerous and too irreg- 
ular, the result is ἀρρυθμία ; a group intermediate in 
character is ῥυθμοειδής ; on some groups any two people 
might disagree. No one of these epithets can be applied 
to a single time-interval, except to indicate its relation 
to another, or to a group. 

Under these circumstances it becomes of minor import- 
ance in which of these two ways this second τούτων was 
intended. In either case the sentence applies to the 
ῥυθμοειδεῖς, which reach over into the ἔρρυθμοι, and it 
cannot apply to a group that in a concrete form, as sung 
or recited on a particular occasion, is ἔρρυθμος with 
mathematical precision. As to ἄρρυθμοι one hardly 
‘aises the question; if one does raise it, I should say the 
sentence might well enough apply to them. But a 
given group as sung by one performer might be so_per- 
fectly rhythmized that there could be no question of 
στρογγύλοι or περίπλεῳ, while as recited—and well 





180 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


recited — by another, the listener might hesitate whether 
to call the same group ἔρρυθμος or ῥυθμοειδής, and find 
some parts στρογγύλοι and others περίπλεῳ. lo over- 


look this state of the facts is to misconceive the essential 
nature of rhythm in art. It was to put in the proper light 
such problems as this that so much space in Chapter U1] 
was given to the subject of rhythm in language. 

Looking now more closely at some details of the 
sentence, we see that the phrases μᾶλλον τοῦ δέοντος and 
πλέον ἢ δεῖ imply a standard of rapidity. That can be 
nothing else than the time—that is proportionate 
time, or ratios between times — demanded by the 
mathematically exact rhythmic pattern. Syllables 
which perceptibly move more rapidly than that are called 
στρογγύλοι ; if more slowly, they are called περίπλεῳ. 
The latter acquire their relative slowness διὰ συνθέτων 
φθόγγων. Now what else can this mean, in application 
to verse, than what Dionysios means by τὰς τῶν γραμμά- 
των συμπλοκάς Ὁ (Op. cit. 16, p. 196 Schaefer.) In 
that chapter he employs a variety of expressions to 
denote the manifold combinations of sounds that lighten, 
hasten, delay, make smooth or harsh, variously expressive 
and fit, the style of verse or prose. Such phrases are 
παρατιθεὶς ἀλλήλοις τὰ δυσέκφορα (p. 204 Sch.), τὰ 
δυσεκφορώτατα λήψεται καὶ καταπυκνώσει τούτοις τὰς 
συλλαβάς (p. 206 Sch.); by such means one produces 
ἀναβολὰς χρόνων (p. 208 Sch.). And we have seen 
(above, p. 175) that he analyzes the phonetic structure of 
the Sisyphos lines on this basis, explaining how and why 
the description of the sufferer’s toil is labored and slow 
in rhythm, and that of the stone’s fall rapid. What 


reason is there for supposing that the two men, or their 


authorities, did not have in view the same phenomena, 
though describing them in slightly different terms ¢ 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 181 


sut the difference in terms is really very slight. 
Dionysios calls the φράσιν of the rapid line εὔτροχον Kal 
περιφερῆ ; στρογγύλος means primarily round, spherical ; 
in passage (2) Aristides couples ἐπίτροχοι and στρογγύλοι 
as Synonyms ; κύκλος is a circle, κύκλιος round. All 
alike contain the same figure, obtain the meaning rapid 
through the same group of associations, and are applied 
to the same kind of feet and of rhythmic movement. I 
see no ground for assuming a distinction of technical 
significance. Rossbach once took στρογγύλος and κύκλιος 
as equivalents; the reasons given for rejecting that view 
(e.g, by J. Caesar, Grundziige ἃ. gr. Rh. p. 98 f.) are 
not cogent. And περίπλεως is merely over-full, that is, 
containing sounds of such character or number or both as 
to require for clear enunciation more time than the 
exact pattern allows. Either they must be unduly 
compressed to crowd them into the interval allowed by 
it, or they retard the tempo a little. The former is 
allowed in singing, as one phase of the fuller πλάσμα of 
song ; in the speaking voice the ritardando is unavoidable. 
The relation of this to ἀλογία is obvious. It seems to 
me therefore entirely natural that some of the rhythmici 
should have extended the class of ἄλογοι, as described by 
Aristoxenos, to include under it either the στρογγύλοι 
(κύκλοι or κύκλιοι) or the περίπλεῳ or both. The 
phenomena themselves were unmistakable; not having 
clearly in mind the single broad principle of rhythmiza- 
tion, the basis of all concrete rhythms in art, they could 
not apply that principle to such phenomena, but sought 
other technical explanations ; and this has led to 
distinctions and to precise measurements that are 
illusory 
Citation (2) is in harmony with this interpretation of 
(1). Aristides in this entire chapter is describing the 





182 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


ethos of different rhythms. Here he characterizes first 
the differing effects of rapid tempo and of slow tempo, 
the same tempo continuing throughout; then the effects 
of στρογγύλοι καὶ ἐπίτροχοι passages and οἱ περίπλεῳ 
passages within a given rhythm, with whose normal 
movement these more rapid or slower passages are 
compared in the mind of listener or spectator. The 


Sisyphos lines are analyzed by Dionysios as an illustration 


of both these latter effects. Now returning a moment to 
the starting-point of our discussion of “cyclic” feet we 
see that Dionysios was quoting ordinary dactylic and 
anapestic lines, which when recited or read with 
expression moved a little more rapidly or more slowly 
than the exact ? time. The most rapid of them he does 
not conceive as reduced to ὃ time; no ancient writer, late 
or early, offers any basis for a belief in such dactyls or 
anapests. But the terms orpoyyvAos or κύκλος (perhaps 
κύκλιος) and περίπλεῳ mark real variations from the 
strict rhythmic pattern, which is nevertheless felt to exist 
underneath the variation, as the norm to which the 
movement constantly tends to return. Among these 
στρογγύλοι and περίπλεῳ are to be found one class, at 
least, of the βραχυτέρας βραχύτεραι and the μακρᾶς 
μακρότερα. The phenomena are no less marked in 
modern English verse than in ancient Greek. Analogues 
in modern dances are frequent, and their ethos is in 
general pretty well described by Aristides. Moreover in 
verse these variations are more pronounced and more 
frequent in reading than in song. In this respect the 
difference between musical and spoken rhythm is really 
considerable, and goes far to account for many things. 
For example it is the slight basis of fact for that far too 
sharp distinction between recitative and melic rhythm 
which so many have insisted on; it explains indeed why 


FOOT, ICTUS, “CYCLIC” FEET 183 


so many fail to recognize the true character of rhythm 
in modern verse. ‘The departures from the exact pattern 
are so great that they obscure this, unless one not merely 
has a rhythmic sense of at least average delicacy, but has 
in addition trained his consciousness of rhythm and 
acquired some skill in detecting the precise ratios of the 
regular rhythms. To any one so qualified —and most 
people can, if they care to, so qualify themselves — any 
verse that can be called good plainly reveals the exact 
pattern underneath, to which the movement tends to 
conform, and conforms more fully the more the reader, 
whether from the child’s fondness for distinct rhythm or 


from the character of the poetry, approaches in his 
reading to the musical style. 





VI 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 


It is beyond the scope of this volume to set forth in 
detail a complete system of Greek metric; but some 
application of the foregoing principles to the explanation 
of specific meters may fairly be demanded. The so-called 


dactylo-epitritic and logacedic meters are so common, 
and have been so much the subjects of controversy, that 
no one who writes on metric can ignore the problems 
they offer, whether he believes himself to have completely 
solved their riddles or not. We will consider the two 
briefly in the order named. 

Perhaps the best approach to the former is by way of 
Blass’s view, which rests on a portion of the ancient 
tradition. His view was first published in Fleckeisen’s 
Jahrb. for 1886 (pp. 455 ff.), and is repeated in the 
preface to his Bacchylides (pp. xxix ff.). I will first 
summarize his argument, urging the reader to test my 
summary by turning to Blass’s own pages in one volume 
or the other. 

The name dactylo-epitritic is not ancient, but modern, 
as also the current description of this meter. In the 
scholia to Pindar verses of this sort are called δίμετρα 
(tpiwetpa) προσοδιακά, and according to Blass it is the 
invariable teaching of the ancients (constans veterum 
doctrina) that the feet are not dactyls or anapeests, but 
choriambs and ionics: the dimeter of the scholia is 
—~vvu—lvuvu—-, choriambus and ionic a minore. 
Indications of this view are to be found even in Aris- 








COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 185 


tophanes and Plato. In the Clouds, Sokrates, who 
professes amongst other arts that of rhythm, τὴν περὶ 
ῥυθμῶν, is asked by Strepsiades, what is the use of a 
knowledge of rhythm, and replies, 


“ \ > x 
πρῶτον μὲν εἶναι κομψὸν ἐν συνουσίᾳ 
᾽ oh τ al pI “ ~ 
ἐπαΐονθ᾽ ὁποῖός ἐστι τῶν ῥυθμῶν 
x ὃ , b a“ - »» / 
KATA OAKTUAOV χωποῖος av κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον. 


These two classes of rhythms were therefore, both 
well marked and similar. There is also a scholion of 
Hephaistion in which the likeness is put in a clear light: 
κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον μὲν οὖν (80. ἔπος) ἐστι τὸ ἔχον δύο δακτύλους 
καὶ ἕνα σπονδεῖον, οἷον 


ὡς φάτο δακρυχέων τοῦ δ᾽ ἔκλυε πότνια μήτηρ. 


That is, there are certain hexameters (6. g., the first of the 
Iliad) which take the form of the ἐνόπλιος, in that they 
have a spondee in the third and sixth places, and there 
alone. These are exactly like Pindar’s Nem. IX 1, 
Κωμάσομεν παρ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος Σικυωνόθε, μοῖσαι. These, 
therefore, are true ἐνόπλιοι, and this class of meters is 
familiar to us as to the contemporaries of Aristophanes. 
Farther, Plato, Rep. 400 b, speaking of meters of the 
γένος ἴσον, quotes Damon as naming ἐνόπλιόν τινα 
ξύνθετον καὶ δάκτυλον καὶ ἡρῷόν ye. Here we have 
three forms in place of two; the ἡρῷος is now dis- 
tinguished from the simple dactylic. Again, Marius 
Vict. explains the difference between these as follows: 
Differt a dactylo heroum eo, quod et dactylicum [et 
spondiacum] est, et in duas caeditur partes, .. . 
dactylicum enim, licet isdem subsistat pedibus, non 
tamen isdem divisionibus ut herous caeditur versus. 
That is, Blass proceeds — but I must remark that what 
follows is not in Marius Vict. nor in any other ancient — 





186 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


but Blass proceeds, if you divide Il. A 1 not by tripodies, 
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ In | ληιάδεω ᾿Αχιλῆος, but into three 
dipodies, μῆνιν ἄειδε Oe | ἃ Ἰ]ηληιά | dew ᾿Αχιλῆος, you 


will have dactylic verse instead of heroic, except indeed 
that the spondee in the third foot is less suited to the dac- 
tylic. This, Blass tells us, is the meter κατὰ δάκτυλον that 
Aristophanes refers to. But in what particular does the 
ἐνόπλιος differ from the heroic? The term used by Plato 
in ἐνόπλιον ξύνθετον, which Blass affirms (but on no 
ground that I can discover) cannot signify anything 
composed of equal parts, but must signify something 
composed of diverse parts. If therefore you divide μῆνιν 
der | δε θεὰ Πη | you will have the ἐνόπλιος ξύνθετος, 
which consists of two parts that are equal in extent, for 
they have each six times, but are very different in form. 
But we have seen, Blass adds, that this is the division 
given by the metrici (i.e., the metrical scholia) to the 
προσοδιακός. Blass takes προσοδιακός to be the Aris- 
toxenean name; but as one is enough, he prefers the 
name ἐνόπλιος, testified to by Aristophanes and Plato. 
Baccheios also gives a similar division for the meter 
which he calls ἐνόπλιος, ὁ τὸν πίτυος στέφανον, this 
consists, he says of iambus, pyrrhic, trochee, iambus 
v—luul—viv—l. Marius Vict. also says of the 
kolon —~VU—uUv— —, appellatur quadrupes δυωδε- 
κάσημος περίοδος. eo quod quattuor pedes temporum 
duodecim quasi per circuitum quendam recurrentes 
contineat. The feet are —vlyu—lyvi-v!* It 
is clear that these are not doctrines of the vulgar 
metrici, but of the musici, since this word περίοδος 
belonged to the musici, in the sense of a round of three 
or four unlike feet, as of three trochees and an iambus. 
In this sense Aristides employs it, as well as the Pindaric 


1 Marius Vict. in Keil’s text puts a spondee in the last place. 





COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 187 


scholia, and also—according to Blass, but in my 
judgment he is mistaken— the Oxyrhynchos fragment 
of Aristoxenos. Whether now you so divide as to make 
four disyllabic feet, or two feet of four syllables each, 
there will always remain that unlikeness of parts that 
Plato’s term ξύνθετος demands. It makes no difference 
whether the series begins with arsis or thesis — or rather 
makes only a difference of form, not of real character or 
name. ‘Thus we find the various forms of the enhoplius 
expressed by the formula (¥)~UUv—uUuU_(v). The 
syllable which may be prefixed to the first apparent 
dactyl is generally long, but may be short; so of the 
syllable that may follow the last apparent anapest. 
Finally, in place of choriambus or ionic may stand the 
trochaic or iambic dipody, commonly with one arsis 
prolonged. Thus the scholion to Ol. III v. 2 of str. 
calls the line προσοδιακὸν τρίμετρον ; then on the next 
line, ὕμνον ὀρθώσαις, ἀκαμαντοπόδων. the description 
given iS προσοδιακὸν τρίμετρον καταληκτικὸν ἀπὸ 
τροχαϊκῆς συζυγίας ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπ᾽’ ἐλάσσονος ἰωνικοῦ. 
This description is obviously correct ; for if you take the 
form —vv—vv—-— and prolong the third and fifth 
syllables, you obtain —~vu——— u—~; if you take the 


9 


other form ——uv—vv~— and prolong the fourth and 
sixth, the result will be ~~ u___ _ vu __,, ete. 

At this point one cannot but ask, Why select precisely 
the third and fifth, or the fourth and sixth, out of the 
eight? By that method any meter can be made to pro- 
duce any other you like; it is indeed the very process 
by which certain grammarians (e. g., Terentianus Maurus, 
1861 ff.) constructed stemmata of meters in complete 
independence of all historical basis. By prolonging the 
second and fifth of the first form you get bacchiie ; by 
shortening the fourth and seventh you get palonic; and 





188 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


so on. But this lengthening and shortening of syllables 


means changing ratios and passing from one class of 
rhythms to another. This theory of enhopli has in fact 
won adherents partly because it seemed to explain a 
great variety of metrical forms. It does so because it 
postulates a common measure that is so protean. Al- 
most any combination of four syllables is a foot, accord- 
ing to this theory. Let us go back and examine our 


steps, to see where they led us astray. 

First we will take a look at the Aristophanes passage. 
What is Aristophanes doing in that scene? He is show- 
ing how silly and worthless is the teaching of the soph- 
ists. To be able to distinguish what rhythm is κατὰ 
δάκτυλον and what is κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον may make one κομ- 
hiv ἐν συνουσίᾳ; it has no other value. Could the 
comedian say more plainly that, in his judgment, for the 
average man at least, distinguishing between rhythms 
κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον and κατὰ δάκτυλον was hair-splitting? The 
ἀλεκτρυών joke follows immediately. Plainly, the poet 
thinks it no more worth while to distinguish rhythms 
κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον and κατὰ δάκτυλον than to violate Greek 
usage by distinguishing the ἀλεκτρυών into ἀλέκτωρ and 
ἀλεκτρύαινα. The distinction could be made, but seemed 
funny. The two rhythms were to Aristophanes as 
much alike as cock and hen, for which the ordinary 
Athenian thought one word sufficient,—as we, in 
ordinary speech, have no need to distinguish fish into 
masculine and feminine. 

The scholion to Hephaistion tells us the same in 
another form. The dactylic line, ds φάτο δακρυχέων τοῦ 
δ᾽ ἔκλυε πότνια μήτηρ, and plenty of others, contain 
twice each the member —vu—vv—-—; such a hex- 
ameter the scholiast says is κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον. The line does 
not therefore cease to be a dactylic hexameter. It is 





COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 189 


merely the first of seven varieties of hexameter to which 
that scholion (p. 167 W.) gives separate names. Nor 
does this scholiast divide the line in any other than our 
ordinary way. He describes it as ἔχον δύο δακτύλους 
καὶ ἕνα σπονδεῖον. If these be ἐνόπλιοι, there is no 
mystery about them. 

Now in the Plato passage what have we? Says 
Socrates, “I think I have heard him name a certain 
ἐνόπλιος, a compound, and ἃ dactyl, yes, and a ἡρῷος.᾽ 
I do not see the slightest reason for supposing that 
Plato, by the epithet ξύνθετος, intended to imply any- 
thing more than the scholion in Hephaistion where he 
describes the κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον ἔπος as having two dactyls 
and a spondee. Aristoxenos would have called the 
half-line a ποὺς EvvGeros; to him a ποὺς ξύνθετος was 
made up of like parts, not of unlike. For example, in 
giving the ποδικαὶ διαφοραί he says (p. 298 Mor.): of 
δὲ ἀσύνθεται τῶν συνθέτων διαφέρουσι τῷ μὴ διαιρεῖσθαι 
εἰς πόδας, τῶν συνθέτων διαιρουμένων. What evidence 
have we that Plato meant anything else ? 

The remarks of Marius Vict. (p. 70 ff. K.) call for 
a somewhat longer examination. More fully than as 
quoted by Blass they run as follows: ‘“* The principal 
form of dactylic verse is that which is called the heroic 
line. This differs from the dactylic in this, that the 
heroic line is both dactylic and spondaic, and is divided 
into the two parts mentioned above, the penthemimeres 
and the hephthemimeres. For the dactylic, though it 
consists of the same feet, is on the other hand not 
divided in the same way as the heroic line.” This 
clearly refers to the fact that the dactylic verse of lyric 
poetry appears most commonly in kola of three or four 
entire feet, namely two dactyls and a spondee or three 
dactyls and aspondee; often also in tripodies or tetrapo- 





190 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


dies of pure dactyls. Combinations of such kola pro- 


duce a rhythmical effect and had a musical character 
different from that of the heroic verse, with its pause 
commonly within, instead of just after, the third foot. 
For example, from the parodos of Cid. T.: 

ὦ Διὸς adverres hati, τίς ποτε τᾶς πολυχρύσου, 
and 


% 7 Vv »" % / , 
εἴ ποτε Kal προτέρας ἄτας ὕπερ ὀρνυμένας πόλει 
ἠνύσατ᾽ ἐκτοπίαν φλόγα πήματος, ἔλθετε καὶ νῦν. 


Here are three dactylic hexameters; but they are in 
effect, taken together, very different from heroic hex- 
ameters. Much more do dactylic verses of three and 
four feet, though still made up of the same feet as the 
heroic verse, differ from it in effect.1. Familiar examples 
are Soph. El. 130-134, or Alkman’s 

Mao’ aye, Καλλιόπα. θύγατερ Διός, 

apy’ ἐρατῶν ἐπέων. ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἵμερον 

ὕμνῳ καὶ χαρίεντα τίθει χορόν. 
A little farther on (p. 73 K.) Marius Vict. adds: “ This 
also let me not pass over, as it is worth the notice of an 
educated ear,—a fact observable in the dactylic hex- 
ameter, which will still consist of two dactyls anda 
spondee in each of the two kola. In such a line are 
found the four disyllabic feet, i. e., trochee, iambus, 
pyrrhic, spondee, always placed in that order —if you 
choose to scan it in another way than the law of the 
heroic hexameter requires. Such is the Homeric line, 


1So Rossbach, Metrik® p. 91, note 1. Compare also Terentianus 
Maurus, 1630f.: 


sed non et sextum [locum] pes hic sibi vindicat umquam, 

nisi quando rhythmum, non metrum, componimus. 
“But this foot (the dactyl) never claims the sixth place too, except 
when we are writing /yric instead of recitative verse.” 








COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 191 


Ζεὺς δὲ θεῶν ἀγορὴν ποιήσατο τερπικέραυνος, 
or in Vergil, 
Incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, versus, 


And this is called quadrupes δυωδεκάσημος περίοδος, 
because it contains four feet of twelve times recurring 
as in a sort of regular round.” 

The points to observe here are these. First, our 
grammarian is here dealing with genuine and ordinary 
dactylic hexameters. He is careful to indicate that they 
remain so (cui tamen duo cola e duobus dactylis et 
spondeo constabunt), in spite of this curious fact about 
the four dissyllabie feet discoverable therein. Secondly, 
he gives this expressly as a mere curiosity, of some in- 
terest to a student, but not bearing on the real character 
of the line as a rhythmical form. He takes pains to say 
that the law of the heroic hexameter calls for a different 
division, which that mode of scanning would contravene 
(si velis alias quam hexametri heroi lex postulat scan- 
dere). 

And thirdly, how about the term περίοδος in this 
sense, and the use of it by musici and metrici? It is 
true that Aristides Ὁ. employs the term in this sense, 
that the title of his work is περί μουσικῆς, and that in 
his sections on rhythmic he follows in part the doctrine 
of the older musici. On the other hand, he is in his 
metrical teaching distinctly a metricus.!_ In other words 
he is an eclectic, of late date, and every statement of his 
that differs, or appears to differ, from what we know to 
be a doctrine of Aristoxenos must be carefully exam- 


* “Seine Behandlung der eigentlichen Metrik nimmt auf die 


Rhythmik keine Riicksicht, ist vielmehr, wenn auch nicht in Wider- 
spruch damit, doch in der Aufstellung der Gesetze davon unabhingig.” 
J. Caesar, Grundziige d. Metrik, p. 32. 





192 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


ined, before we can be quite sure to which school it 
belongs. The fact that he employs periodos in this 
sense does not of itself prove that it was so employed 
by Aristoxenos, or by any real musicus. We must look 
elsewhere for evidence. 

At least two meanings of περίοδος were current, and 
our later sources contain, in several versions, definitions 
of the two side by side, as if the compiler were unaware 
that they were two. For example, Marius Vict. earlier 
in his treatise (p. 55 K.) says: 

Nam periodus, quae latina interpretatione circuitus vel 
ambitus vocatur, id est compositio pedum trium vel quat- 
tuor vel complurium similium atque absimilium, ad id 
rediens unde exordium sumpsit, sicut temporis lustrum 
vel sacrorum trieteris, dicitur in poematis, quando non 
versus omnes eodem metri genere panguntur, sed ex va- 
riis versibus carmen omne compositum per circuitum 
quendam ad ordinem suum decurrit. περίοδος dicitur 
omne hexametri versus modum excedens, unde ea quae 
modum et mensuram habent metra dicta sunt. subsis- 
tet autem ex commatis colis et versibus. 

Plainly the first clauses here describe the kind of 
periodus mentioned in the other passage, cited by Blass. 
This periodus consists of a few feet, which may be quite 
dissimilar, forming a sort of round; apparently the more 
unlike the feet, the more interesting the periodus was. 
This round when finished was at once repeated, as the 
combination — vu |u—!vv!——! in the hexameter des- 
ignated as κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον. But the last two sentences 
describe a very different thing. This περίοδος is longer 

1 For this whole discussion of περίοδος, ef. Westphal-Gleditsch, Allg. 
Theorie ἃ. gr. Metrik, pp. 177-59, especially the last two pages. Also 
Christ, Metrik, pp. 86-88. The latter’s explanation of the probable 


origin of the later usage, by Aristides Q. and others, appears reason- 
able. 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 193 


than a hexameter, and contains two or more kola, kom- 
mata, or verses. One might fancy for a moment that 
the author intended to differentiate the two senses by 
using the Latin form for one and the Greek form for the 
other; but the other passage, to judge from our MSS 

forbids that. ᾿ 

Again in Schol. A. to Hephaistion περὶ ποιήματος (p. 
218 W.) we find: 

Περίοδός ἐστι ποδικὴ ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ καταρίθμησις " ὧσ- 
περ γὰρ τὸ μὲν δακτυλικὸν ὑπὸ ποδὸς μετρεῖται, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ 
συζυγίας, τουτέστι δύο ποδῶν ἁπλῶν, οὕτω καὶ ὑπὸ περιό- 
δου, τουτέστι τριῶν ποδῶν, ὡς ἐν συζυγίᾳ καταμετρεῖται 
ἄνευ ἀριθμοῦ τινὸς ὡρισμένου, οὐκ ἐπιφερομένης τινὸς 
ἀντιστρόφου, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀδιαφόρως, εἰ τύχοι, τριμέτρων 
(ὄντων) δύο καὶ ἑνὸς τετραμέτρου καὶ μονομέτρου καὶ ἑξῆς 
ὁμοίως, ἀδιαφόρως οὔσης τῆς αὐτοῦ ποσότητος. ἸΠερίοδος 
γὰρ ἡ ἐκ διαφόρων κώλων περικοπή, ὡς ἐν τῷ παρ᾽ ᾿Αλ- 
καίῳ ᾷἄσματι: ἀνταπόδοσις γὰρ γίνεται συστηματική. 

ΓΠΟῸΡΉ the middle third of this is unintelligible and 
probably mutilated, it is clear that we have here also the 
same two kinds of περίοδοι, in the same order, with no 
hint that the compiler saw that they were different. 
One consists of a few feet, which constitutes a group 
that is treated as a unit of measurement, parallel in its 
function to the single foot and the dipody. The other 
is a section consisting of several kola. The scholion 
immediately before this has no allusion to the latter, but 
clearly describes the former in the words: Περίοδος δέ 
ἐστιν ἡ ἐκ διαφόρων ποδῶν ἐν τῷ στίχῳ σύνθεσις, οἷον 
δακτύλου τροχαίου ἀναπαίστου iduBov καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦ- 
τον" ἀκολούθων μέντοι ὄντων καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς, οἷον καὶ τὸ 
προσοδιακόν ἐστιν. The sentences of Hephaistion to 
which these scholia refer emphasize the function of this 
περίοδος as ἃ unit of measurement. 

13 





194 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


But this briefer περίοδος, as far as I can recall, appears 
only in our later authorities, from the time when the 
metrici, speaking broadly, held the whole field. The 
other kind, consisting of two or more kola, appears un- 
mistakably in earlier writers, and in these without a 
rival. Dionysios, in the treatise already cited so often 
(19, pp. 260, 262 Sch.), speaks of ta κῶλα, ἐξ ὧν ἑκάστη 
συνέστηκε περίοδος. and tells us that the older melic 
poets, as Alkaios and Sappho, made their strophes small, 
while Stesichoros and Pindar, μείζους ἐργασάμενοι τὰς 
περιόδους. εἰς πολλὰ μέτρα καὶ κῶλα διένειμαν αὐτάς, οὐκ 
ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ τῆς μεταβολῆς ἔρωτι. This has the air of 
being derived from excellent early tradition. The ar- 
gument of Westphal (Metrik, p. 187 f.) is persuasive. 
Suidas tells us that Thrasymachos of Chalkedon πρῶτος 
περίοδον καὶ κῶλον κατέδειξε Kal TOV νῦν ῥητορικῆς τρόπον 
εἰσηγήσατο. These technical terms were certainly not 
invented by him; he introduced them into the theory 
of rhetoric, the younger, from the older and already well 
developed terminology of music. Though περίοδος does 
not occur in our fragments of Aristoxenos, it is highly 
probable that he used it in this sense and in this only. 
He had no use for it in the other sense; any group of 
times employed as a measure was to him a πούς, simple 
or compound. The passage from the Oxyrhynchos 
fragment runs as follows: 

Τὸ yap μονόχρονον οἰκειότερον τοῦ τροχαϊκοῦ ἢ TOD ἰάμ- 


βου" οἷον ἐν τῷ 


Bate Bate κεῖθεν, αἱ δ᾽ εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν ὀρόμεναι" 


LA ~ ι » ἐς > / 
τίς ποθ᾽ ἃ νεᾶνις ; ὡς εὐπρεπής viv ἀμφέτπει. 


γ᾽ lod ~ ΄ 
τρεῖς πόδας διαλείπουσιν αἱ ξυνξυγίαι, ὥστε περιοδῶδές τι 


γίγνεσθαι. 
This can surely not be cited as evidence that Aristox- 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 195 


enos used περίοδος in the sense desired by Blass. First 
there is no proof, but only a certain degree of probabil- 
ity, that these fragments are from Aristoxenos. They 
may be from one of those ῥυθμικοί who followed him in 
many respects, but introduced developments inconsistent 
with his fundamental doctrines. In the mutilated state 
of the papyrus some parts are not yet intelligible; but 
not a little of it seems to harmonize very ill with what 
we already had of Aristoxenos. Secondly, the other 
sense of περίοδος applies here perfectly. Rhythmically 
the verses are identical with Aisch. Eum. 516-519, 


a x “ 
ταῦτά τις τάχ᾽ ἂν πατὴρ ἢ τεκοῦσα νεοπαθὴς 
οἶκτον οἰκτίσαιτ᾽, ἐπειδὴ πίτνει δόμος δίκας. 


No one would hesitate to call the latter ἃ περίοδος, as do 
Rossbach and J. H. Schmidt. And the papyrus gives 
the reason. The triseme — ξυνξυγία denoting the union 
of the two usual χρόνοι ποδικοί into one, a μονόχρονον --- 
recurs in the place of every fourth foot, marking the end 
of each kolon; the repetition of these kola to the num- 
ber of four —or of three as in Eum. 882 ff., or six as in 
Eum. 998 ff., but most plainly of all with four — inevi- 
tably, if a distinct close or obvious rhythmical change 
then marks the end of the series, produces the impression 
of a larger unit including them all. And that is the 
essence of the περίοδος in the older meaning, which is 
still the usual one among writers on metric. 

The positive grounds advanced by Blass for believing 
his theory of so-called dactylo-epitritic verse to be the 
one current in the classical age have now been critically 
examined and found insufficient. The scholia to Pindar 
generally follow it; the Bacchylides papyrus may show 
the influence of an editor who followed it, though 
that is far from certain; Hephaistion and his scholiast 





196 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


recognize it; but to claim it as the ‘constans veterum 
doctrina’ is to build a structure far too large for its base. 
Even the scholia to Pindar frequently describe lines on 
the other system, as O. Schroeder in his new edition of 
Bergk’s Pindar is forced to admit (App. p. 498). Schroe- 
der offers no explanation of their inconsistency, and 
attributes no value to such scholia as do not make for 
his view. He cites, however, δακτυλικὸν τρίμετρον O. 
Vi ep. 6%, δακτυλικὸν πενθημιμερές passim, and others.! 
But we must go farther, and see whether the theory is 
not inconsistent with fundamental and well-established 
principles taught by Aristoxenos. 

If we look at such a division of the heroic hexameter 
of the κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον form, what do we find? Does that 
division correspond to any rhythmical fact? Take again 
either of the hexameters used by Marius Victorinus. The 
scheme is —UUu—vu—— repeated. Let us hold our 
attention to realities, with as little attention as possible 
to theories. To call the line rhythmical means that it 
exhibits, when spoken, a regular arrangement of times, 
temporum inter se ordo quidam. We wish to ascertain 
and state what that arrangement of times is in this case. 
This arrangement of times, observe, is a matter of spoken 
sounds purely. What arrangement of times appears in 
fact in that series of spoken sounds? Now, when one 
raises clearly that question about any series of sounds, 
he is at once forced to raise the farther question, How 
can we make clear to ourselves and describe to others 


the arrangement of times that we hear? It was by way 


1 Though inclined to ridicule the “recentiores” who assume tetra- 
semes at the end of dactylic kola (p. 498), Schroeder is obliged himself 
to insert tetrasemes pretty freely (p. 5031f.) to produce the desired ionics 
and choriambs from combinations that on their face have nothing to 
distinguish them from plain dactyls. 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 197 


of answering this last question that Aristoxenos defined 
the foot in the manner already discussed. We must 
find within the series of times a smaller group of times, 
such that by its repetition, perhaps with slight variations 
that do not destroy our sense of the substantial identity 
of the group, it measures off the whole and makes the 
rhythmical character of the whole intelligible. That 
smaller group is a foot; and nothing else is a foot in the 
strict sense, that is, in actual function, though we pro- 
perly apply the general term and give a specific name to 
any group that is potentially a foot, and actually in some 
other series. If in a series of spoken words there is no 
such group that makes itself audible, then that series 1s 
not rhythmical, or has but a broken and imperfect 
rhythm, —is ἄρρυθμος or ῥυθμοειδής. 

Returning now to our hexameters, 


Ξεὺς Se θεῶν ἀγορὴν ποιήσατο τερπικέραυνος, 
Incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, versus, 


what times, expressed in speech sounds, here constitute 
such a smaller group measuring off the whole? If you 
say that the reader, pronouncing the ancient lines with 
a modern theory in mind, puts into them something that 
begs the question, then write the times in musical notes, 
quarter and eighth notes, and let someone play the series 
on a pipe organ, on one key, without use of the swell. 
There can be then no stresses and nothing else to beg the 
question. Then listen, and ask yourself what is, to the 
ear, that smaller measuring group. Only one answer is 
possible. It is the group known as a dactyl, modified in 
two instances to the rhythmically equivalent spondee. 
Remember still that we are dealing with actually spoken 
sounds only, or their musical representatives. When, 
now, anybody divides the written symbols of that series, 





198 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


on paper, so as to produce —v!|v—|vul——|, he has 
in no way affected the character of the spoken line. The 
groups he has made are fictitious; they correspond to 
nothing that can be called a rhythmical fact. He might 
have divided them on paper in half a dozen other ways ; 
the scholiast to Hephaistion (p. 205 W.) divides a 
familiar Homeric line so as to make of the syllables, -ἐφη 
πόδας ὠκὺς ᾿Αχιλλεύς, the feet, y—|yuyv—|vu—|_; 
this procedure is perfectly parallel to the one in question. 
sut the line, when naturally spoken, divides itself to the 
ear in the first way only. The sole real feet there are 
dactyls and spondees. Marius Vict. appears, in the 
passage we are now considering, to have understood this 
perfectly. He gives that division simply to point out 
the curious numerical combinations, in that such a 
half-line contains just the right number and kind of 
syllables to make, if taken in order and in pairs, simulacra 
of all the disyllabic feet, including the pyrrhic, which 
Aristoxenos does not recognize. That is an interesting 
arithmetical fact, but not properly a rhythmical one. 
The rhythmical facts are those that appeal to the ear, 
and are what we have seen. 

The same principles apply to the related division given 
in the Pindaric scholia. It does not correspond to the 
real feet. That is not so obvious when simple dactylic 
tripodies are alone considered; but when the theory 
produces the groups —vy—,vv—v,v—-—, and 
ll cans Se ἶΝ τω δ end ne i BE 1 ne es δὰ 
asks us to consider these as parallel, and real feet, we 
cannot but ask, But what then is a foot and what is not? 
The real problem, in the verse exemplified in say Pindar’s 
third Olympian, is to find what are the smaller groups 
that made themselves audible to the Greek ear, as 
measuring off and making intelligible the rhythm, when 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 199 


those lines were sung. It is impossible to bring into 
accord with Aristoxenos’s conception of feet such 
heterogeneous groups as those postulated by the scholia 
to Pindar that Blass makes the basis of his theory. ὦ 
For Pindar’s idea of that verse we must look elsewhere. 

Nothing is better settled in the history of Greek meters 
than that Archilochos combined in one περίοδος kola of 
different γένη. ἴσον, and διπλάσιον. Whether he invented 
this manner, or merely gave general currency in artistic 
verse to something already familiar in folk-song, need 
not concern us now. The locus classicus on the subject 
is Hephaistion 15 (p. 47 ff. W.); the interpretation of 
this by Rossbach (Metrik,? pp. 865-878) is in general 
convincing, and need not be repeated here. In spite of 
differences of naming, and some uncertainty as to the 
point of division between the members, it was recognized 
down to the latest period that the kola in these cases 
were distinct and not of the same yévos, and that many 
poets continued and developed farther this practice of 
Archilochos. The examples most familiar to modern 
readers are in the epodes of Horace, who follows Archi- 
lochos in making each kolon end with a word-ending, 
though the Greek successors of Archilochos, applying 
the same principles of metrical combination to other 
styles of poetry, often made the division between kola 
divide a word. In one point, however, it is impossible 
to agree with Rossbach, — in the assumption, namely, 
that “the dactylic and anapestic elements pass over 
from the four-timed to the three-timed measurement ” 
(p. 814). Of this our sources give no hint; we have seen 


1 It is not denied, of course, that there was a meter known as ἐνόπ- 
Avs, distinguishable from the dactylic hexameter of the κατ᾽ ἐνόπλιον 
type, distinctly named by Xenophon in Anab., VI 1, 11, and perhaps 
alluded to by Aristophanes, loc. cit. 





200 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


that the assumption of three-timed dactyls and anapests 


or 


is purely modern. And Rossbach himself adds (p. 379), 


Freilich ist Taktwechsel nicht ausgeschlossen, apparently 


admitting thus the lack of evidence for reduction to 


uniformity. We shall be obliged to return to this point 
later. 

Now, among his examples Hephaistion cites one 
(p.52 W.) from Platon ἐν Ξαντρίαις: 


χαῖρε παλαιογόνων ἀνδρῶν θεατῶν ξύλλογε παντοσόφων. 


This he calls τὸ καλούμενον ]λατωνικόν, and divides as 

\ % t ; fa 4 ΕΣ \ 4 
τὰ μὲν ἑκατέρωθεν δύο δακτυλικὰ πευθημιμερῆ τὸ δὲ 
μέσον ἰαμβικόν. Βαΐ, ἃΒ Rossbach points out, a more 
natural division would be, 


a a fen) eee 


wea SF cscs ὦ ES ce ee 
Hephaistion probably preferred the other because that 
brought the line clearly into the class of ἀσυνάρτητα, 
and enabled him to follow his inclination to make the 
members catalectic. He then proceeds: 
᾿Αντεστραμμένον δέ ἐστι τούτῳ τὸ Πινδαρικόν καλούμενον, 
ὃς καὶ τυπεὶς ayv@ πελέκει τέκετο ξανθὰν ᾿Αθάναν. 
σοφοὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἄγαν ἔπος αἴνησαν περισσῶς. 
Here, too, it is hardly more than a question of convenience 
whether we divide as he would have done or in the 


manner that seems to us more in conformity with the 
natural μεγέθη, namely, 


ee ee) ee ee ee ne ee, 


Here we find, then, a clear description of περίοδοι con- 
taining, in different arrangements, the most common ele- 
ments of the so-called dactylo-epitritic verse. One of 
the best of the metrici cites them as compound meters, 
consisting of dactylic-anapestic kola and trochaic-iambic 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 201 


Ἰ 


kola. One of the combinations is even known as the 
Pindarikon ; which indicates that this form was closely 
associated with the poet who is to us the chief represen- 
tative of this class of meters. Here is a tradition of at 
least equal value, as tradition, with the one urged by 
Blass; and while that other harmonizes neither with the 
teaching of Aristoxenos nor with our sense of rhythm, 
this harmonizes with both.’ This treatment also pre- 
serves and makes obvious, while the other conceals, the 
kinship between this particular combination and other 
combinations of similar elements. The numerous forms 
described by Rossbach, Metrik®’, pp. 878-390, are of un- 
mistakable character. Why take as our oracle some 
late anonymous scholiast, and accept from him a method 
that runs counter to natural affinities, when Hephaistion 
offers a method so rational and natural? That is a new 
version of the principle of the difficilior lectio. 

By the method of Hephaistion, then, we analyze into 
kola which are all familiar in endless combinations in 
other meters of their separate classes. On the one side, 
in the even class, the prevailing element is the dactylic 
tripody, either complete or ending on the thesis; dipodies 
and tetrapodies are mingled sparingly with these. In one 
particular the dactylic groups retain an older character 
than the Homeric hexameter, in that each foot but the 
last of the group is a pure dactyl, while the last is 
always a spondee, or a simple thesis, which is commonly 
prolonged. Thus the groups are always clearly sepa- 
rated from each other and from those of the other class. 
In the iambic class the primary element is the dipody, 


1 Discussing another form (p. 48f. W.), 


Me VV eV Ve ee 
Hephaistion mentions with some disapproval the application of the 
προσοδιακός theory to the first member. 








202 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


predominantly of three long syllables and one short. 
These elements, dactylic and trochaic-spondaic, are com- 
bined in various ways into περίοδοι; which exhibit 
generally a degree of symmetry that corresponds, in 
rhythm, to what we find in the monuments of the 
plastic and graphic arts from the same period of Greek 
life. There is, however, no necessity for entering here 
into details on this subject, nor for considering the varia- 
tions introduced, as the prefixed arsis, nor for examining 
the question of anapzestic and iambic division in such 


cases, instead of dactylic and trochaic, nor for investigat- 


ing the question of how far we may assume “ eurythmy ” 
and prolonged theses. But the question of time cannot 
be avoided. 

It has already been sufficiently emphasized that there 
is in ancient tradition no warrant whatever for the three- 
timed measurement of dactylic or anapeestic verse. The 
readiness with which that measurement has been accepted 
is apparently due largely to a mere accident. Modern 
imitations of such verse, from the character of the lan- 
guages in which they are written, are almost invaria- 
bly in triple time, and hence it has been the prevailing 
practice in schools to read the Greek and Latin origi- 
nals in the same way. The unconscious effect of 
that state of things is very στρα. But the influence 
needs only to be recognized; it has no place in argu- 
ment. In the present case the only serious problem 
remaining is, What was done with the trochaic-iambic 
element? The possible answers reduce to two classes. 

A. There was no equalization of time between the two 


1 We even hear people speak of the impossibility of our reading 
ancient verse in even time. It has been proved by repeated experi- 
ment that there is no serious difficulty in taking an average class and 
teaching every member of it to read Homer so. 

















COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 203 


elements. That involves a frequent change of time in 
passing from one to the other; one trochee or iambus of 
the usual dipody was rational, the other irrational, pre- 
cisely as in other iambic or trochaic verse. Sometimes 
both feet of the dipody are of the normal rational type. 

Bb. The trochaic element was conformed in duration 
to the dactylic. Here are three possibilities for the tro- 
chee or iambus. (1) Westphal’s view, that by change 
of tempo from measure to measure a trochee was made 
equal in total duration to a dactyl or spondee, and its 
long twice the length of its short, a third longer than 
the long of the dactyl. (2) J. H. Schmidt’s view (from 
K. Lehrs and J. H. Voss), that the long of the pure 
trochee was made thrice the length of its short. (38) 
That the short was made irrational, the longs being all 
equal; the effect would be a slight accelerando on each 
pure trochee or iambus. 

The argument from Aristides Q. (p. 99 Mb.) in favor 
of equalization of feet between the two elements! is irre- 
futable so far as this: it compels us to reject any suppo- 
sition that involves so marked a change, in passing from 
one element to another, that the listener could say of the 
rhythm, βιαίως ἀνθέλκει τὴν ψυχήν, μεταβάλλων ἐξ ἑνὸς 
εἰς ἕτερον γένος. For this rhythm in Pindar and the 
tragedians is clearly of the ἡσυχαστικὸς τρόπος. This 
argument does not, however, exclude the irregularity 
produced by irrational arses, which appear in other 
meters of the same τρόπος. as in the calmly reflective or 
deeply religious trochaic and iambic strophes of Aischy- 
los. Nor does it exclude the possibility that a kolon of 
say two dipodies of pure trochees, occurring amid kola of 


1 Rossbach, Metrik®, p. 426. This whole section, pp. 425-436, is a 
model of fair and calm presentation, though certain errors in the 
premises vitiate the conclusion. 





204 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


the even class, may have exhibited a complete change to 
the uneven class, and been rendered in triple time. The 
practice of combining in one strophe kola of different 
classes being established beyond question, in Archilo- 
chos and many successors and in various styles, what is 
the natural presumption in such a case as Aisch. Ag., 
123 = 144, or 175f=183f? Within the great dactylic 
strophe, just before the refrain, αἴλεινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, γὸ δ᾽ 
εὖ νικάτω, stands the single line βλαβέντα λοισθίων 
δρόμων, and in the antistrophe στυγεῖ δὲ δεῖπνον αἰετῶν. 
The boundless resources of modern harmony, from 
which chiefly our music derives its richness and variety, 
were not available; all the more did the ancient musi- 
cian use to the utmost the available resources of melody 
and rhythm. ‘The artistic importance of μῖξις and μετα- 
βολὴ is repeatedly emphasized in our sources, as in the 
sentence from Dionysios Hal. quoted above (p. 194). 
This shift of γένος for a simple kolon seems under all 
the circumstances so natural that only strong positive 
evidence could justify us in deciding against it. Of such 
evidence there is none, so far as | know: our mere ex- 
pectation, derived from modern music, that the same 
time-signature (γένος ) should be observed to the end of 
the movement or strophe, is wholly insufficient. So in 
the next strophe of the Agamemnon, in the midst of a 


1 Indeed modern music of the highest class makes frequent, and 
apparently increasing, use of the same freedom. Out of many examples 
I note two only, both from religious music, of the σνχαστικὸν τρόπος. 
In Rossini’s Stabat Mater the words “in amando Christum Deum” (in 
No. 5) are set in ἢὶ time amid 4 time; in Parker’s Hora Novissima a simi- 
lar change is introduced in the bass aria, “Spe modo vivitur.” The 
second example is a very striking as well as beautiful piece of rhythm. 
One measure of ¢ time is followed by one of $ time; this pair is four 
times repeated, and then follows one measure each of ἢ, Ἐξ, and } time; 
next come eight measures again of alternating ¢ and } time, succeeded 
by three measures of ¢ time. 








COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 205 


rhythm otherwise trochaic of the strict type, the kolon 
next to the last is πλὴν Διὸς εἰ τὸ μάταν ἀπὸ φροντίδος 
ἄχθος : in the antistrophe, Ζῆνα δέ τις προφρόνως ἐπινίκια 
κλάζων. In form this pentapody recalls for a moment 
the dactylic triad with which the whole choral song 
began; the refrain of each member was there a dactylic 
pentapody. As that triad by an occasional trochaic 
element, becoming more frequent in the epode, looks 
forward to the movement of the following strophe, so 
here a single dactylic kolon resumes the earlier move- 
ment. The artistic intention seems obvious, the effect a 
fine bit of what we may call rhythmic harmony; this is 
obscured and nearly thrown away by the unwarranted 
assumption of equality of feet throughout the strophe. 
The shift of yévos to that extent, instead of interfering 
with unity of expression in the ἡσυχαστικὸς τρόπος, may 
even be made to strengthen it, and may contribute much 
to enhance the power of the whole. This conclusion 
applies to the strophes of Pindar as well. A dipody of 
pure trochees may have been rendered in triple time; a 
dimeter of pure trochees was probably rendered so, 
though surrounded by dactylic and spondaic elements in 
even time. 

It does not follow, however, that these trochaic 
measures were treated as Westphal believed, each foot 
being made equal in total duration to a dactyl or spondee, 
each syllable a third longer than a syllable of the same 
sort in the dactyl. That is certainly not the natural 
and usual procedure in modern music when a change of 
time-signature occurs. Unless there is a special reason 
for a distinct change of tempo, and a special indication 
of this change from the composer, one rather makes the 
individual notes under each time-signature equal to 
those of the same name under the other, the measures 





206 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


thus falling out unequal in total duration. That is what 
is done with the examples cited above (p. 204, note) 
and others like them. For kola of the kind we have 
just been considering, Westphal’s assumption is wholly 
without support. For mixed kola, in which the syllabie 
form is trochaic-spondaic, that theory postulates a mode 
of rendering that is for us moderns extraordinarily diffi- 
cult, — so difficult that we demand the strongest kind of 
evidence before we can believe it to have been natural to 
the ancients. 

Westphal relied much (Rhythmik? p. 289 ff.) on the 
example of Bach, who wrote one prelude (Well-tempered 
Clav., If 5, in D major) in an analogous manner. | say 
analogous, not identical, because in that composition the 
shift does not occur so often as Westphal’s theory 
requires for the trochaic-spondaic dipody in the dactylo- 
epitritic, or for logacedie verse, in which also Westphal 
assumes the same treatment. In Bach’s prelude the 
shift occurs, it is true, in each measure: but each of 
Bach’s measures corresponds to a kolon of four simple 
feet in the Greek meter. That offers a much easier 
problem for the performer than Westphal proposes for 
the Greek. Yet it is noteworthy that Bach himself, 
great and original master as he was in musical rhythm, 
never repeated the experiment; nor has any successor, 80 
far as Westphal could discover, followed the example. 
Still farther, the difficulty of playing that prelude as the 
composer wrote it is so great that editors usually print it, 


. 


as Westphal complains, in an easier rhythm, reducing the 
measures in common time to 14 time. I do not see then 
how this experiment of Bach makes at all for Westphal’s 
view. 

Nor can we recognize as valid that scholar’s version of 


the principle that the long syllable is always twice the 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 207 


length of the short, in which he found one main ground 
for this shift of tempo. To him that principle, applied 
only to verse that was sung, stood in close relation to his 
sharp separation of sung from spoken verse. That sepa- 
ration we have found did not exist, and this weakens his 
case here materially. But still farther, in verse that was 
sung Westphal recognized fully, as every one must, the 
triseme and tetraseme that result from catalexis; he 
recognized also the irrational syllable, though he wrongly 
assigned to it the exact value of one and one-half the 
length of an adjacent short. Here surely is a wide 
breach in the universality of that rule. Accepting these, 
one can no longer appeal to the rule of two to one as 
universal. The sentence of Aristoxenos on which chiefly 
Westphal relied for that rule (Rhythmik’, p. 286 ff.) he 
considered to be incomplete, since two proven exceptions 
are not mentioned there. The fact seems rather to be 
this: That sentence, which we have only in the Pro- 
lambanomena of Psellos, occured in an early part of the 
treatise, where Aristoxenos was defending his innovation 
of taking as the measure, not the syllable, but the χρόνος 
πρῶτος. He was emphasizing, therefore, the variability of 
syllables, and their unsuitableness to serve as a measure. 
As subordinate to that, his main point, the text admits 
that syllables have indeed the same ratio of magnitudes, 
the short syllable being half the length of the long ;" but 
the author maintains that this is not enough of constancy 
to justify the adoption of the syllable as the measure. 
The text is: 

Ἢ δὲ συλλαβὴ χρόνου τινὸς μέτρον οὖσα οὐκ ἠρεμεῖ 
κατὰ τὸν χρόνον, μεγέθη γὰρ χρόνων οὐκ ἀεὶ τὰ αὐτὰ 
κατέχουσιν αἱ συλλαβαί, --- λόγον μέντοι τὸν αὐτὸν ἀεὶ 
τῶν μεγεθῶν: ἥμισυ μὲν γὰρ κατέχειν τὴν βραχεῖαν 
χρόνου διπλάσιον δὲ τὴν μακράν. (Frag. 1 ap. Psell.) 





208 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Here is no sign of an incomplete sentence. Yet the 
exceptions noted are beyond question. At least two ex- 
planations are possible besides the one adopted by West- 
phal. First, Aristoxenos may have thought it sutlicient, 
in a logically subordinate part of a very brief statement, 
to give merely the well-known general rule, without stop- 
ping to mention exceptions which were also well-known, 
and which later in the treatise he was to explain fully. 
Or, secondly, the words from λόγον μέντοι on may be 
not those of Aristoxenos but of his excerptor and 
commentator, who does not hesitate to mingle his own 
phraseology with his quotations. These words have no 
bearing on the point Aristoxenos made; so far as they 


go they are against it, and sound like the addition of one 


who would be more exact than his master. But we have 
too little evidence to settle the question, nor does it 
really affect our argument. Between catalexis, irratio- 
nality, and the χρόνοι ris ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι there is 
abundant room in the system of Aristoxenos for another 
method of rhythmization in this meter than the one 
defended by Westphal. 

And in fact the proper statement of the real problem 
is this: How did the Greeks in singing rhythmize these 
syllabic combinations? The precise ratio of two to one, 
the common ratio between the long and short, cannot 
have been strictly observed throughout; the pure tro- 
chees (or iambi) must have involved some form of 
departure from it.’ Quite apart from the lack of evi- 
dence for three-timed dactyls, we must still say that the 
trochees were somehow rhythmized under the influence 


1 One might be inclined to assume the mode of rendering which is 


illustrated in the passage cited from Parker’s Hora Novissima; but - 


that would be, in ancient terminology, either dochmiac or else (for the 
most part) feet of the λόγος ἐπίτριτος employed in continuous rhythmo- 
poiia, both of which are definitely excluded. 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 209 


of the dactyls and spondees, not these under the influ- 
ence of the trochees. In tragic dialogue, where the foot 
of two long syllables constitutes distinctly less than half 
the average line, and never closes it, the obvious prepon- 
derance of three-timed feet led the speaker to reduce the 
time of the apparent spondee, approximating it to the 
other by making one long irrational. The situation was 
essentially the same in the trochaic tetrameter, and in 
other trochaic and iambic meters. But here, in the 
dipodies which externally resemble those of the tragic 
trimeter and the trochaic tetrameter, the spondee ordi- 
narily ends the kolon, and often the line and periodos. 
That fact alone goes far to indicate a spondaic instead 
of a trochaic movement. And then the proportion of 
the two classes is reversed, and more than reversed. 
One must start with a strong prepossession indeed in 
favor of three-timed rhythms to suppose that one tro- 
chee to three or four dactyls and spondees could regulate 
the whole, reducing all to trochaic time. Assuming, 
then, that a purely trochaic dimeter, perhaps even a 
dipody, may have kept its own triple time, we cannot 
suppose a single trochee, isolated among dactyls and 
spondees, to have been wholly unaffected by its neigh- 
bors. The universal rhythmizing impulse must have 
made itself felt in some degree on such a trochee. This 
brings us to the last two possibilities of the above tabu- 
lation; was the trochee made -v or —>? 

A categorical answer seems at present impossible. The 
evidence appears to me about as follows. To begin with, 
the foot - wv is not admitted by Aristoxenos among 
those capable of continuous rhythmopoiia: τῶν δὲ ποδῶν 
Kal συνεχῆ ῥυθμοποιίαν ἐπιδεχομένων τρία γένη ἐστί, τό 
τε δακτυλικὸν καὶ τὸ ἰαμβικὸν καὶ τὸ παιωνικόν (p. 800 


Mor.). This is an additional argument against a whole 
14 





210 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


kolon, or even a dipody, of such feet. But according to 
frag. 9 from Psellos, single feet of that type mingled with 
others were admitted by Aristoxenos: γίνεται δέ ποτε 
ποὺς ἐν τριπλασίῳ λόγῳ, γίνεται καὶ ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ. When, 
therefore, after telling us (p. 802 Mor.) that the feet ἐν 
τετρασήμῳ μεγέθει are dactylic, Aristoxenos adds, as the 
reason, that in the number four two ratios are possible, 
namely 2:2 and 1:8, ὧν ὁ μὲν τοῦ τριπλασίου οὐκ ἔνρυθ- 
μός ἐστιν, We must understand him to mean by οὐκ ἔν- 
ρυθμος not employed continuously. And in fact he is at 
this point simply enumerating and describing the three 
γένη which he has just said are thus continuously em- 
ployed. Elsewhere he uses ἔνρυθμος in a broader sense ; 
for example, enumerating the differences between feet 
(p. 298 Mor.), he says that one foot differs from another 
in yévos when their ratios differ, as when one has the 
ratio of equality, another that of 1:2, ὁ δὲ ἄλλον τινὰ 
τῶν ἐνρύθμων χρόνων. The last phrase distinctly implies, 
as characterizing a foot, more than one ἔνρυθμος ratio 
besides those of equality and of 1: 2; among these others 
must be included that of 1:3 as well as that of 2:3. 
One illustration of an isolated foot ἐν τριπλασίῳ λόγῳ 
and ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ occurs rather often in lyric iambics. 
Aisch. Eum. 553 f. reads, 


e Ἁ δ᾽ > , »μ / a 
ἑκὼν δ᾽ ἀνάγκας ἄτερ δίκαιος ὧν 
οὐκ ἄνολβος ἔσται. 


The scheme is v —- ve —~v—v—vLI_-v—vLt~-. 
Here are three occurrences of the form ὦ —Ut. To 
a Greek this was an iambic dipody ; but by ξυνξζυγία----ἴο 
use the term of the Oxyrhynchos papyrus—the second 
iambus becomes UL, ἐν τριπλασίῳ λόγῳ, and the 


whole dipody as a ξύνθετος πούς is ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ. The 
names of the feet, as syllabic combinations, were 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 211 


apparently unchanged; but the χρόνοι τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας 
ἔδιοι produce these ratios, which are ἔνρυθμοι, but are 
not employed continuously and cannot occur in imme- 
diate succession. This, I say, constitutes one illustra- 
tion of the foot in the ratio of 1:38, and we have 
no reason for assuming that it was the only one. The 
single trochee among dactyls and spondees may well 
have been another. The frequency of such measures in 
modern music makes this seem to us the more natural 
answer to our question; in actual reading we more 
readily answer the question practically in this way than 
in the other. Analogies in English verse also look that 
way. The example which I cited sixteen years ago is as 
good now as then. In Emerson’s little poem, The 
Rhodora, the closing lines are: 


I never thought to ask; I never knew, 

But in my simple ignorance suppose, 

The self-same Power that brought me there 
brought you. 


By the preponderance of strong and long syllables the 
last verse in natural reading passes over from triple 
to even time. The only syllables that remain strictly 
short are the and that; the second of these is made one- 
third as long as the syllable Pow’, the whole scheme being 

. Such feet are by no means rare 
in English. Browning’s Cavalier’s song, Give a Rouse, 
contains several. 

But it must be admitted that these considerations 
taken together do not amount to proof. It is possible 
the trochee in that situation was made irrational. Indeed 
I see no reason for excluding the possibility that indi- 
vidual examples may have differed somewhat, according 
to their phonetic constitution. If the long consisted of 





212 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


a diphthong followed by two or three consonants, the 
short being merely a single vowel, such a foot may have 
taken naturally the form —v, while another trochee, in 
which the long consisted of a single long vowel and one 
consonant, the short consisting of a short vowel plus a 
mute and liquid, may have taken the form —>. In 
either case it is not unlikely that the trochee would be 
felt as στρογγύλος ---- 80 far as a single foot could be so 
— because required by collocation to fill more time than 
two such syllables ordinarily did fill. 

Though Hephaistion gives names for specific combina- 
tions ἢ this meter, as Platonikon and Pindarikon, and 


ma «ar onehd cers , 
classes them al under the general ΒΕ ἐπισυνῦετα Οἵ 


| 
, ᾿ } . ‘7 1 ὦ Υ}λ7 
. , ἡ τῷ Ὶ ‘ > nyt TTY) . ἢ τε pnrer Sf ¢ X Te nt 
compound, we have no ancieht rm ΟἹ the | l 


4 7 1c 
hat is 


Ι " 
but clumsy, 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 2138 


and to show why they are not to be sought along certain 
other lines. We will approach the subject by way of 
the ancient tradition. One principle of method must, 
however, be emphasized first. It will not do to take one 
part of the tradition, isolate it from the rest, and build 
on that as if it were the whole. So stated, the principle 
is obvious enough; but it has often been disregarded in 
the treatment of logacedic verse, as we have seen that it 
has been disregarded in the treatment of the elegiac and 
the dactylo-epitritic. 

A part of the tradition which at present appears to be 
in high favor is found in Aristides Q., p. 35 ff. Mb., from 
which I will quote, translate and summarize, so far as is 
needful for clear presentation. First the following 
introductory paragraph : 

Τῶν ῥυθμῶν τοίνυν of μέν εἰσι σύνθετοι, of δὲ 
ἀσύνθετοι, οἱ δὲ μικτοί: σύνθετοι μὲν οἱ ἐκ δύο γενῶν 
ἢ καὶ πλειόνων συνεστῶτες, ὡς οἱ δωδεκάσημοι, ἀσύνθετοι 
δὲ οἱ ἑνὶ γένει πτοδικῷ χρώμενοι, ὡς οἱ τετράσημοι, μικτοὶ 
5 τὲ μὲν εἰς χρόνους, ποτὲ δὲ εἰς ῥυθμοὺς 

οἱ ἑξάσημοι. τῶν δὲ συνθέτων οἱ μέν 
, οὗ δὲ κατὰ περίοδον. κατὰ ovlvyi- 
ἐστι δύο ποδῶν ἁπλῶν καὶ ἀνομοίων σύνθεσις, 
7 λείόνων. 
ng σύνθετοι ῥυθμοί, 
are certain ones 
σύνθετοι are 
κατὰ συζυγίαν, combining 
and κατὰ περίοδον, combining 
lear that σύνθετοι is her 
cial sense than that of 
of Aristoxenos when 
also that this περίοδος is 


rmoTrowveanadga? ma + Aa? 
do U' xChDeCan one. It may 


¥ 





erence ute 





and spondee, with 
᾿. 
in enumerating the feet : , Mb. ie combination 


} T 


of iambus or trochee plus spondee is called ἐπίτριτος, 
: συνέστηκεν ἐκ ποδῶν λόγον ἐχόντων ἐπίτριτον, ὃν 
ἔχει τέσσαρα πρὸς τρία" ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῶν δισυλλάβων ἐν 
αὐτῷ τρίσημος ὁ δὲ τετράσημος. In short, wherever he 
counts up the times of feet in such a way that we can 
test him, he counts on the “ metrical” basis. It is there- 
fore reasonably certain that these twelve-timed periods 
are so named on that basis, which excludes the irrational 
syllable. It is clear that the system was in his view 
complete, and that it does not cover the commonest 
forms of glyconic verse, but only some of the less com- 
mon. Is it not a fair conclusion that he was not here 
trying to describe the glyconie at all? Still less can we 
suppose him to have intended here to give the key to 
the countless variety of forms called logacedic, so few of 
which are even approximated by his scheme. Take, for 
example, stanzas like those in Soph. Phil., 169-190. The 
strophes are of a common type, glyconic lines mingled with 
nearly related forms; but only one line, νοσεῖ μὲν νόσον 
ἀγρίαν, is clearly accounted for by this system, which 
has no place at all either for the antistrophic line 


Aristides gia 


c 


ial he believed 


fy \% 
bite VV 
Le CXalN pies. 
Ὺ 


leteness Of 1t awakens the suspicion 


vhole it 1s mainly an arithmetical fancy; yet 


ff 


no means deny that ancient music may have 


ained all these combinations. But in that case we 
uld surely follow Aristides himself in dividing the 
series, making each twelve-timed periodos correspond to 
one modern measure in 14 time. Why does Weil make 
the line above quoted, τὸν ἀργῆτα Korwvov ἔνθ᾽ a λίγεια 
puvuperat, consist of one 12 measure preceded by a seven- 
timed and followed by a five-timed incomplete measure ? 

For the genuine character and early date of the general 
theory Weil relies much on the passage of Aristides (p. 
98 f. Mb.) on the ethos of various rhythms. These 
σύνθετοι are there said to be παθητικώτεροι as compared 
with the ἁπλοῖ, --πολὺ τὸ ταραχῶδες ἐπιφαίνοντες. 
Most of all is this true of those διὰ πλειόνων ἤδη 
συνεστῶτες ῥυθμῶν: πλείων yap ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀνωμαλία. 
This description is eminently true of the rhythms 
described. A musical composition in such a rhythm 
would seem to us, precisely as to Aristides, highly emo- 
tional; the recurring syncopations produce an effect of 
greatagitation. But does thatagree with the character of 
logacedic verse in general, or of glyconic verse in particu- 
lar? Such a rhythm would in most cases be quite out 
of harmony with the content. It is a rhythm that would 
be not inappropriate where the tragedians employ the 


Fy ha Ag ELE ie OTS BESSY Me, αν τος. 





218 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


ΓΚ 


dochmiac, —less agitated than that, but approximating 
it. But Sophokles uses the logacedic as a meter of all 
work, varying the form infinitely to suit the content; but 
in him and all the Greek poets glycomic verses are com- 
paratively equable and calm, — charged with emotion, it 
is true, as all lyric verse is, but not πολὺ τὸ ταραχῶδες 


ἐπιφαίνοντες. 

And then, whether we take Weil’s or Masqueray’s method 
of division, we must raise again the question whether 
that system harmonizes with the Aristoxenean notion of 


a foot. Masqueray gives the series -——vlv—v— | 
_~v_vulu—v—!. [018 hard to believe that Aristox- 
enos would have said of these combinations, τούτοις τοῖς 
ποσὶ σημαινόμεθα τὸν ῥυθμὸν καὶ γνώριμον ποιοῦμεν τῇ 
αἰσθήσει. In our musical system such measures, not 
occurring too often, are unified by the regular beating of 
time; occurring in ancient music occasionally, as χρόνοι 
τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι, they would be unified in the same 
way, being constantly referred mentally to the χρόνοι 
ποδικοί. But it is incredible that such combinations, in 
so complicated alternation and succession, were accepted 
as the regular χρόνοι ποδικοί through whole strophes 
and long poems. It seems to me far more likely that 
Aristides is here following purely “ metrical” theory of 
the later type, treating series of syllables, long and short, 
without taking into account the true rhythmical character 
as actually rendered. We have seen above (p. 190 f.) 
how Marius Vict. treats one form of the δυωδεκάσημοι 
περίοδοι, --- ἃΒ merely a curious way of dividing ἃ dactylic 
tripody. He was evidently familiar with the system 
and may be presumed to have understood it. Yet it is 
possible — p. 98 f. certainly looks that way — that Aris- 
tides is describing real phenomena that were occasionally 
met with in music, particularly instrumental. 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 219 


But above all one asks, Are there other ancient 
descriptions of such verse? Is it true that the theory of 
Aristides “ von siimtlichen griechischen Metrikern geteilt 
wird,” as Weil maintained ? 

Hephaistion 10 and the scholia thereto (pp. 82-85 and 
183-189 W.) constitute an interesting document that 
contains much in common with Aristides Q. 37, with 
additions and subtractions. Instead of the περίοδος 
δωδεκάσημος the antispast v——v is now made the 
key to a variety of meters. The opening paragraph is: 

Τὸ ἀντισπαστικὸν τὴν μὲν πρώτην συζυγίαν ἔχει 
τρεπομένην κατὰ τὸν πρότερον πόδα εἰς τὰ τέσσαρα τοῦ 
δισυλλάβου σχήμαται' τὰς δὲ ἐν μέσῳ, καθαρὰς 
ἀντισπαστικάς " τὴν δὲ τελευταίαν ὁπότε ἐστὶν 
ἀκατάληκτον, ἰαμβικήν' ἐὰν δὲ ἀναμίσγηται ταῖς 
ἰαμβικαῖς, οὐ μόνον τὴν πρώτην συζυγίαν ἔχει τρεπομένην 
κατὰ τὸν πρότερον πόδα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ταῖς ἰαμβικαῖς 
ἑπομένην. ἔστι δὲ ὅτε καὶ λύεται ὁ πρότερος ποὺς εἰς 
τρίβραχυν. 

Then follows a list, with examples, of the noteworthy 
forms. 

1. The πενθημιμερές, the so-called dochmiac, 
κλύειν μαίεται. VY —— UV | — 
The ébOnuimeps&s, the so-called pherecratic, 
ἄνδρες πρόσχετε τὸν νοῦν. ———vlu—— 
The dimeter acatalectic, the so-called glyconic, 
κάπρος ἡνίχ᾽ ὁ μαινόλης, ete. MO—v gee ἘΚ 
Dimeter hypercatalectic, or nine-syllabled sapphic, 
καὶ κνίσσῃ τινὰ Oupinoas. ———vlyu—vyv—I= 
5. Trimeter catalectic, with only the first measure 
antispastic, the rest iambic,—the φαλαίκειον, 
χαῖρ᾽ ὦ χρυσόκερως, βάβακτα, κήλων, etc. 


τ cate Wh sin tS θι 





220 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


6. Trimeter acatalectic, or ἀσκληπιάδειον, 
ἦλθες ἐκ περάτων yas, ἐλαφαντίναν, etc. 
7. Twelve-syllabled alcaic, of which the middle foot 
is antispastic but admits in the first two places any of the 
four disyllabic feet; this is preceded and followed by an 
iambie dipody, the former admitting a spondee at the 
beginning, 
κόλπῳ σ᾽ ἐδέξανθ᾽ ἁγναὶ Χάριτες Κρόνῳ. 
Ὡς  Νυ ee ee 
8. Tetrameter catalectic pure, 
κατθνάσκει Κυθέρη aBpos, “Adwuis* τί κε θεῖμεν. 
9, Tetrameter catalectic but with an iambic dipody in 
the second place, the πριάπειον, 
ἠρίστησα μὲν itplov λεπτοῦ μικρὸν ἀποκλάς. 
ΠΡ Ce ee ΝΥΝ | ΘΒ ye eee 
This appears also πολυσχημάτιστον : the above is the 
καθαρῶς ἐσχηματισμένον. A frequent form also has 
only the second syzygy antispastic ; Sappho wrote in this 
meter, as 
γλυκεῖα μᾶτερ. ov τοι δύναμαι κρέκην τὸν ἐστόν. 
10. Tetrameter acatalectic, in which the whole third 
book of Sappho and many songs of Alkaios were written: 
νύμφαις ταῖς Διὸς ἐξ αἰγιόχω φασι τετυγμέναις 
ἘΝ ye ee ΗΓ, ΤΥ Ὺ ΒΝ 
11. The same hypercatalectic, as used by Simmias, 
τὸν στυγνὸν Μελανίππου φόνον ai πατροφόνων ἔριθοι. 


12. Pentameter, used by Alkaios, 


Kpovida βασιλῆος γένος, Αἶαν, τὸν ἄριστον πέδ᾽ ᾿Αχιλλέα. 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 221 


It is essential to take this entire series together in 
order to grasp its character and relation to other metrical 
theories and schemes. Several facts are thereby brought 
out. 

In the first place, the glyconic is here distinctly men- 
tioned by name; an attempt is made to account for its 
varieties, and to place it in relation to other meters of 
similar types. Concrete examples appear to be the 
starting-point, rather than an arithmetical scheme. So 
far, if we are looking for an explanation of logacedic 
verse, Hephaistion is more promising than Aristides. 
Yet only one of the forms which we know as glyconic is 
included; this scheme is no more complete than the 
other. The differences between the two in terminology 
and method are considerable and lie on the surface; for 
example, Hephaistion’s antispast is one of the two 
βακχεῖοι of Aristides, who enumerates in each case the 
simple two-syllabled feet instead of taking the four- 
syllabled foot as the unit. On the other hand, Hephaistion 
treats the antispast as a compound, συζυγία, of which the 
first half is variable, while Aristides distinctly recognizes 
the grouping by pairs. In both authors alike we must 
look in other parts of their work for the treatment of 
plainly related forms. 

If now we ask whether Hephaistion’s scheme is in itself 
rational and satisfactory as an explanation of these 
metrical forms, the difficulties are considerable, and in 
part of similar character to those we found in that of 
Aristides. The fundamental one is in the foot assumed 
as unit. We need not go over all the discussion about 
the antispast. The most thorough metricians of the 
modern school have not yet fully rehabilitated the anti- 
spast, though I see no reason why one should stick at it 
more than at Blass’s enhoplii and the other feet assumed 





222 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 
in the Weil-Masqueray theory of logacedic verse. The 
objection to all is of the same character. Put simply it 
is this: We cannot believe that such a combination of 
syllables was a real foot in the Aristoxenean sense, a foot 
employed continuously, by which the character of the 
rhvthm was marked and made intelligible. We cannot, 
indeed, be confident that our rhythmical feeling was in 
every detail the same as that of the Greeks; we must in 
some particulars distrust our feeling and accept well 
accredited ancient doctrine. But we cannot suppose our 
sense of rhythm to be so absolutely unlike the ancient. 
So far as the doctrines of Aristoxenos have been handed 
down to us in unquestionable form, they harmonize well 
with our experience. His idea of the foot is clearly 
expressed, is beyond question, and commends itself to 
our reason. The antispast and amphibrach, as feet of 
continuous rhythmopoiia, are inconsistent with his 
description of six-timed and four-timed feet, because in 
them thesis and arsis cannot stand in due relation to each 
other: they are out of harmony with other parts of his 


svstem. and also with our reason and rhythmic sense, 


a 


= ἫΝ é att a hn 
because they divide eacn pall of short Sy Hable Ss occul 
, iS νος, ee , δουΐδα ani 
ring regularly between longs in a continuous series, and 
put the two syllables in different feet, while our eal 
δὰ ἡ 


agrees with Aristoxenos 11 


Ὶ . | Lota: 
Ὶ bal "WVe ᾿ 117 Sar 
And 111 SUULI biii VilLY 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 223 


so far as external “ metrical” fact goes, but not correctly 
representing the rhythm. Precisely how the poets con- 
ceived that rhythm one mav feel uncertain; we may be 
quite certain they did not conceive it in this way. But 
this part of the scheme is of equal authority with the 
rest, the rest of no greater authority than this. 

Finally, Hephaistion’s chapter 14, in which are set 
down τῆς Kat ἀντιπάθειαν μίξεως τὰ πυκνότατα, includes 
several forms that appear to be related to those we have 
been considering; they have been grouped naturally with 
them as “ logacedic.” And MHephaistion, though he 
does not make clear the kinship of the two groups of 
meters, does apply to them a similar principle. That 
principle is in essence this: Taking each well-marked 
and familiar series, treated simply as a succession of long 


and short syllables in a definite order and number, he 
divides it into “feet” (συζυγίαι) of four syllables each, 
beginning always at the beginning of the line. As 
metrical key he then takes that four-syllabled foot which 


is most nearly constant in the series; the other four-syl- 
labled groups he treats as variations of that foot; if the 
whole number of syllables is not evenly divisible by four, 
the line is catalectic or hypercatalectic. Thus, for 
example, the eleven-syllabled sapphic, 


ποικιλόθρον᾽ ἀθάνατ᾽ ᾿Αφροδίτα, a eee τ oe | ee 


epichoriambic ; the first syzygy is a trochaic dipody, 


ix-timed or seven-timed;” the second is a choriamb ; 


(κατακλείς consisting of an 


si close 
ryt. 7 ᾿ Γ θ ͵ 

anceps. ‘The adonic, πότνια θυμὸν, 

choriambic penthemimeres. 50 also 


lina 
LIne, 


» rat = # 
, ayva, μελλυιχόμειδε Σάπφοι, 


ed ee . 4 WS ae oom 





some 


in 


cated meters 


« 


Ι 


A 
ution 


and the sol 


| 
am 
et 
poe 
ὑπο, 
eet 
A’ 
ΕΝ 
os 
“--- 
ee 
cee 
coed 
” 
cone 
pect 
ee 
a 
“-- 
ope 
ν-; 
od 
ow 
- 
rote 
-- 
» 





cul 


vtlum 


Ve 


{ 


heroum, 


phere 


lexametrum 


I 


“~) 


ee 
-- 
“Ὁ 
ΒΝ 
al 
moe 
τ 
Coon 





11 


nam quidam et trochnaeulll © ambpbum 1 ea, sede CcolLLocasSse 

, . la¢aillada aa 1] ils a 
reperiuntur, inter quos et Catullus est Sib ὁ xemplis 
huius modi, 


Ἰ 


cui dono lepidum novum libellum 
arido modo pumice expolitum ¢ 
meas esse aliquid putare nugas. (P. 148 K.) 


(4) Nam heroi hexametri tres pedes cum inciderint 
interposita, ut versus priapeus exigit, distinctione, eundem 
secernunt, ut ‘cui non dictus Hylas puer, dehine ‘et 
Latonia Delos.’ qui si inter se enuntiatione copulentur, 
hexametri versus tenorem integrum modumque praesta- 
bunt, nequaquam tamen disciplinae ac dignitati heroi 
respondentem. nam divisio huius in secundo commate 
infracta paululum ac mollior receptis in versu primo et 
quarto spondeis efficitur, ut apud Catullum 


hune lucum tibi dedico consecroque, Priape, 


quos distinctio occultat auribus, nam si divisiones metri 
priapei separentur, ita sonabunt apud Virgilium, ‘fronde 
super viridi sunt.’ dehine ‘nobis mitia poma ἡ : ‘ castaneae 
molles et,’ dehine ‘pressi copia lactis.’ constat autem, 
ut supra diximus, duobus metris, quorum prius est gly- 
conium octo syllabarum, sequens pherecratium syllaba 





rit, Velutl 


} ἈΝ 
yer) 7 cT y°y™ Γ᾿ ᾿ > 
». orato Pyrra sub antro. 


ῳ 


Priapi laudes pleriq ue canendo 
priapeum metrum nuncuparunt, quod 
genus hexametr! adeo abhorret ab heroi lege, ut utraque 


ars non numquam trochaeis et iambis aut pro spondeo 
anapaestis inchoetur aut etiam cretico prius comma pro 
dactylo terminetur, ut est apud Catullum ‘nam te prae- 
cipue in suis,’ dehine ‘ Hellespontia ceteris,’ quia bina 
sunt cola mora distinctionis intercedente. (P.151 K.) 
In (1) the two divisions —~—|—vvl_—v¥ and 
—_—|—_vvu—!v are shown to be “ metrically ” equiv- 
alent. Next it is shown that a glyconic and pherecratic 
together, in that order, make a priapeum, provided each 
part begins with a spondee. The spondee is insisted on 
because the aim here is to illustrate the derivation 
theory, which made all three verses developments from 
the dactylic hexameter. In (2) the asclepiadean is 
shown in like manner to be identical with the elegiac 
pentameter, —less the final syllable, as the author 
makes clear three pages later (150 K.), where he adds 
a syllable and makes the line, ‘Maecenas atavis edite 
regibus 0.’ Here again, to favor the same derivation 
theory, that form of asclepiadean is assumed as normal 
which begins with a spondee and ends with a short syl- 
lable. But this likening of the line to the pentameter 
leads one to raise the question whether in rhythm also, 
as well as in syllabic constitution, the author understood 
this asclepiadean to be like the pentameter. We have 
seen that in the latter, as rhythm, this author, like 
Quintilian and Augustine, made a pause after the first 
hemistich, or such a prolongation as filled out the 














— 
ru 
} 


ἠδ" : ὌΝ, te 
qgaence touching the validity ΟἹ ti 


lx 
Ay 


se 


may be found along yet another line of search. 

Kirst, what meters did e metrici mselves call 
logacedic, and how did they descri ? The loci 
classici are the following from Hephaistion and Marius 
V ictorinus. 

(1) "ἔστι δέτινα καὶ λογαοιδικὰ καλούμενα δακτυλικά, 
ἅπερ ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἄλλαις χώραις δακτύλους ἔχει, 
τελευταίαν δὲ τροχαϊκὴν συζυγίαν: ἔστι δ᾽ αὐτῶν 
ἐπισημότατα τὸ τε πρὸς δύο δακτύλοις ἔχον τροχαϊκὴν 
συζυγίαν, καλούμενον δὲ ᾿Αλκαϊκὸν δεκασύλλαβον " 


» 


ἐσχατιαῖσιν οἴκεις " 
4 ‘ ‘ ΤῊΝ / , aie ΟΥ̓́ sd 
Kal TO πρὸς τρισί, καλούμενον Ἰ]ραξίλλειον, 


> οι \ ~ j ‘4s ‘ > | y / 
ὦ διὰ τῶν θυρίδων καλὸν ἐμβλέποισα. 


NS 
ὃ 


4 ’ ‘ » , 
παρθένε τὰν κεφαλάν, τὰ ὃ ἔνερθε νύμφα. 
( p- 25 δ .} 
~ Ν ΕΝ - οι i 
@ OAKTUALK@ ἣν Ti λογαοίδικον, 
ey » ~ > - , ) ~ ΄ 
οὕτω KAY τοῖς ἀναπαίστιίικοῖς TO εἰς PAKYELOY περαιούμενον " 
= * ‘ , ; ‘ ‘ ; AN ν ‘ 
οὐ ἐστὶν ἐπισημότατον TO μετὰ τέσσαρας πόδας αὕτον 


w ‘ ) a e ͵ κι ᾿ 
exov TOV ακΧειον, @MV 0O TT PWTOS YiLVETaAL [abt OWTOVOELOS 


Ἢ ; - > ‘ ) i. s § 
Kat tawpoos. ae LTat UL OVY i MIOVAELOV aATTO A prve- 
᾿ Σ 





ΤῸ αειἰιόειν. 


O€ σηονοξιίιου. 


e 


Ὁ ἃ ye : , ἊΝ or 7 7 ' »ῪΣ Ὕ» ‘ "τι 
Ψιλώτερα APTL γὰρ a LIKEAA μὲν Evva. 


ε 


τοὺς O€ μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον πόδα τρεῖς οἱ μὲν ἐν συνεχείᾳ 
& 


γράψαντες TO μέτρον πάντως ἀναπαίστους ἐφύλαξαν 
᾿Αλκμὰν δέ που καὶ σπονδείους παραλαμβάνει. (P. 29 
f W.) 

(3) His logaoedicam metri speciem, quae et enoplios 
et archebulios dicitur, non absurde coniunxerim, adaeq ue 
dactylici metri subolem, scilicet cum trochaica basi ver- 
sus clauditur duobus vel tribus vel quattuor dactylis 
praeeuntibus, prout carminis mensura aut ratio exegerit. 
culus generis est etiam hoc, quod ex duobus dactylis et 
duobus conectitur trochaeis et appellatur alcaicum deca- 
syllabum, ut est 


a 


laurea Nyctelio corona; 

item e tribus dactylis et duobus trochaeis, ut 

quadrupedante ciet pede primus aequor ; 
rursus e quattuor et duobus trochaeis, ut 

Romulide pedites Arabum populis amici. 
quae species et in anapaestico versu reperietur, ita dum- 
taxat, ut postrema eius clausula bacchio a brevi incipi- 
ente terminetur et pro anapaesto non numquam spondeus 


(p. 111 f. K.) 


assages are clear and consistent with one an- 


Lines or kola beginning with two or more dac- 





Ἷ 1 


᾿ ᾿ ] ] lx γέ rcy Ἢ "Ἢ ] sf? ve ry ΕἾ ve) 
iambie close should aly ays be catalectic, while the 
trochaic close of the dacty li logacedic Is complete, 


catches the attention at once. The t 


pears, are exactly alike in their ending; 


ὙΔ * ’ 


ference is at the beginning. ‘This is a case where the 
application of the modern musical method of division 
brines out most simply the real difference between the 


two, thus: 
᾽ 


—vvyl|—vvul—_vvl—vl—™ dactylic logacedic, 


pe ee eee ee ee eee anapeestic logacedic. 


That is, a logacedie series has two or more dactyls fol- 
lowed by a trochaic dipody; it may or may not have a 
prefixed arsis of one short, one long, or two short sylla- 
bles. Whether the final syllable was treated as an arsis, 
or as a thesis following a prolonged syllable, there is here 
no clear indication; but the name bacchius for the last 
three syllables of the second form suggests the latter as 
the true close. 

The metrici recognized, therefore, various combina- 
tions of dactyls and trochees in one kolon; Alkman ad- 
mitted the spondee for one or more of the dactyls. The 
name logacedice implied at least two dactyls — or in Alk- 
man one spondee and one dactyl?—followed by two 





ἢ Ἰ ΠῚ . 7 
ΟΥ̓ ἤν δ + ἡ 1 Ν “τ ἢ. 
ΠΟΊΠΟΙ tne nine-syilia- 
a 


form καὶ κνίσσῃ τινὰ θυμιήσας 

hich Hephaistion elsewhere (p. ot 

Ρ. 219) calls an antispastic dimeter hyper- 

ie view of Hephaistion, 

r not. It would seem that 

“inship, as a plece of rhythm, with 

“, which the metrici certainly called 

ogacedic, is undeniable. In our longest fragment of 
[kman both forms occur as equivalents in antistrophic 


responsion, as 


τῶν ὑποπετριδίων ὀνείρων, 
ἄστρον ἀνειρόμεναι μάχονται. 
ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Αγασιχόρα με τηρεῖ. 


And at least in these logacedic verses with two dactyls 
there is not the slightest warrant in the ancient tradition 
for syncopation in the modern musical sense, or for any 
method of rhythmical division other than that into plain 
dactyls (or spondees) and trochees, perhaps in some 
cases with a double thesis at the close, the penultimate 
syllable being prolonged. The form —vv—Uu_u_v 
is simply the familiar vai φορήμεθα σύν HeXaiva, or “ flu- 
mina constiterint acuto,’ the fourth line of the alcaic 
strophe. 

Again, no meter has a more plainly marked rhythm, 
universally agreed upon, than the trochaic tetrameter. 
But in this trochaic rhythm dactyls were admitted. 
Hephaistion says: 

Τῷ δὲ δακτύλῳ τῷ κατὰ τὰς περιττὰς ἐμπίπτοντι 
χώρας ἥκιστα οἱ ἰαμβοποιοὶ ἐχρήσαντο ποιηταί" 
σπανίως δὲ καὶ οἱ τραγικοί, οἱ δὲ κωμικοὶ συνεχῶς, 
ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἰαμβικῷ, τῷ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρτίου ἀναπαίστῳ" 
ἑκάτερον γὰρ ἄλογον" οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἰαμβικῷ ἐχρῆν 

















236 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


~ “4 ᾿] 3 φ » Ν a 
ἀνάπαιστον ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρτίου χώρας, ἐφ᾽ ἧς οὐδὲ σπονδεῖος 
’ \ c , Ἂ " 3 
ἐγχωρεῖ, οὗ λύσις ἐστὶν ὁ ἀνάπαιστος οὔτε ἐν τῳ 


iT τὰ .. ὡς 7 ee 
τροχαϊκῷ ἐπὶ τῆς περιττῆς τὸν δάκτυλον, ἐφ᾽ ἧς οὐδὲ 
σπονδεῖος ἐγχωρεῖ, οὗ ὁμοίως λύσις ὁ δάκτυλος. (P. 21 
f. W.) 

The rarity of the dactyl among such trochees does not 
affect our question. It was recognized as legitimate ; 
how was it treated? Evidently Hephaistion considered 
it parallel to the spondee in the same meter, admissible 
in the same places, treated in the same way. Rossbach, 
indeed, says (Metrik*, p. 189, note): Hephaestion halt 
den (kyklischen) Dactylus fir eine Auflésung: des 
(irrationalen) Spondeus, doch haben beide Fiisse nichts 
mit einander zu thun. The dictum of the last clause 
rests on nothing but a modern assumption as to the 
character of the “cyclic” dactyl. We have already trav- 
ersed that ground, and will not repeat our steps. Heph- 
aistion’s view, as here stated, is eminently reasonable, 
not in conflict with any principle that we have hitherto 
discovered. In my judgment it furnishes, in combina- 
tion with the λογαοιδικά, a clue to the right understanding 
of the meters we are considering. Not that this passing 
remark of a metrician would alone determine the matter. 
But other familiar facts point to the same conclusion. 
In the iambic trimeter also, of the stricter form, two 
short syllables were admitted in arsis only where the 
irrational long was admitted. What is there to oppose 
the natural presumption that the one arsis was equal in 
duration to the other, both being irrational ? 

Here, then, are two distinct types of rhythmical combi- 
nation, which at certain points closely converge. On one 
side are combinations of two or more dactyls (or in some 
cases anapzests, according to the mode of division) 
followed by a trochaic dipody (or in the other case a 





COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 237 


bacchius). Any longer trochaic close than the dipody 
is for some reason tacitly excluded from the type under 
this separate name, λογαοιδικά, The reason may be 
merely a theory that such a longer trochaic series had 
better be classed as a separate kolon, which would make 
the whole a compound instead of a mixed meter; or it 
may be some other feature of the “metrical” system of 
nomenclature. For our present purpose both the fact of 
exclusion and the reason for it are immaterial. One or 
more of the dactyls (or anapests, as before) may be 
replaced by the spondee ; one pure dactyl was enough to 
preserve the general type. So much on the one side. 
On the other side is the single dactyl occuring in one of 
the odd places of trochaic verse, or (as before) the 
anapzest in iambic verse; in both alike two short syllables 
fill the place and the time of an irrational long. In 


tetrapodies the two types approximate each other closely ; 
for example, 


arr’ ᾿Αγησιχόρα με τηρεῖ. ——|—vvl—vl—v 
τοῖς ᾿Ελευσινίοις φυλάσσων. —vl—vyl|—vi-yv 


The latter is cited from a trochaic tetrameter of Epichar- 
mos. Both these forms are divided by the old metrici in 
the manner indicated; one cannot doubt that in these 
cases that division indicates correctly the rhythm. 

How, then, should we divide in order to indicate the 
rhythm in other lines that are clearly, so far as we can 
see, of nearly related character? Alkman furnishes 
illustrations enough. Let one examine without a pre- 
conceived view these passages. 


(1) Evdovew δ᾽ ὀρέων κορυφαί te καὶ φάραγγες, 
πρώονές τε καὶ χαράδραι, 
φῦλα θ᾽ ἕρπετα τόσσα τρέφει μέλαινα γαῖα. 





pas πον νον IOS ge qa gee oe 

















CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


Ἢ οὐχ ὁρῇς ; ὁ μὲν κέλης 
᾿Ενετικός " a δὲ χαίτα 
τᾶς ἐμᾶς ἀνεψιᾶς 
᾿Αγησιχόρας ἐπανθεῖ 

Ἀ t = > id ee a 
χρυσὸς WS ἀκήρατος 
τὸ T ἀργύριον πρόσωπον 
διαφάδαν τί τοι λέγω: 


᾿Αγησιχόρα μὲν avra. 


In (1) the subject excludes all thought of any rhythm 
that could express τὸ ταραχῶδες: syncopation is out of 
the question. The first line is λογαοιδικός, except that 
one more trochee is added. Can anyone believe that the 
additional trochee alters in any way the rhythmical 
character of what precedes? The line is surely 
—~—l—vvul—vvul—_vl—vl—v The only question that 
can arise with regard to divisions is whether Alkman 
conceived of it as one kolon or two. But the third 
line is identical in movement, except that the second 
syllable is short. This is not antistrophic responsion, 
itis true; but it is just the kind of repetition with shght 
variation that is so prominent a feature in all the 
rhythmic arts, and is founded deep in the very nature 
of those arts. The line between these two consists of 


four pure trochees; sense-pauses fall at the end of each 
line. It is impossible to divide the third line otherwise 


than as cont ace IEP Neer ae ire ache But here we 


have one trochee before and three after the two dactyls. 
Again, in (2) the first four lines are repeated rhythmical- 
ly in the second four with two slight variations. For 
convenience of comparison with the trochaic tetrameter 
we may write the scheme, simply longs and shorts, 
ignoring for the moment the question of prolongation, 
thus: 





? 
he en es ee, 2 


The movement is plainly trochaic; but for the tribrach 
in the first line of the scheme a dactyl appears in the 
other three. Here, then, is the single dactyl again among 
trochees, in such surroundings that one cannot doubt 
that at least the second of the two shorts belonged in 
arsis, not in thesis. As to the first of the two shorts, 
one might indeed make an argument for putting it in 
thesis. So far as this passage alone goes, one might take 
the correspondence between the dactyls and the tribrach as 
a bit of evidence for making the long irrational and regard- 
ing the thesis as made up of this irrational long plus the 
first short. But we have seen that the evidence for a 
cyclic dactyl of the same duration as a trochee, —a 
dactyl in which the syllables bear the ratios of 14: 4:1 
or of $: ἢ : ὃ --- dissolves and vanishes before critical 
examination. Also the evidence for any form of irra- 
tional syllable, properly so called, in thesis, turns out 
very dubious at best. Farther, the verses in question, 4, 
6, 8 of the text, if divided separately in Hephaistion’s 
fashion, come under the head of Hephaistion’s évaraotixad 
λογαοιδικά --- unless indeed we are to insist that two 
pure anapests must be present in addition to the initial 
spondee or iambus, to justify that name. In short, there 
is no sufficient reason for doubting that the dactyls we 
are considering are of exactly the same character as those 
in (1). 

Thus by several roads and from rather distant starting- 
points we have arrived at the same result, namely, the 
existence in Greek poetry of numerous and common 
forms of mixed kola,—that is, of kola wherein one or 


PME Si mc ae MT Ae PT NR a aarp ἄμμες, er as aA a HO 











240 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


more dactyls are com| bined with one or more trochees or 
‘ambi. The old metricians themselves rec ognized such 
mixture within a kolon, though it was no part of their 
program to explain fully what in such cases the real 


rhythm was. To call such mixed kola logacedic is to 
extend a little, but only a little, the sense of the ancient 
term: if one does not like to do that, the simple term 
mixed, which is also ancient, will do very well. 

How did the rhythmizing impulse deal with such 
mixed kola? Somewhat variously, we may believe, but 
variously within narrow limits, according to the nature 
of the material, — that is, according to the proportion of 
the two kinds of feet, and according to the phonetic 
constitution of the separate feet. To simplify the prob- 
lem we will consider only the cases where there is no 
question of prolonging a thesis to a triseme or a tetra- 
seme —in other words, kola of dactyls and trochees 
alone. Following the indications of the rhythmici and 
metrici together, and accepting hints from our own pro- 
cedure in rhythmizing modern verses, in reading them 
and in singing them to the simplest melodies, we may 
state the matter thus. Two impulses acted in a certain 
degree of opposition to eac Ἢ other. One impulse was to 

rhythmize the syllables of dactyls and spondees in even 
time, thesis and arsis equal, and the syllables of trochees 

in triple time, thesis twice the length of the arsis. That 
was the normal thing; it was founded in the nature of 
language as ordinarily spoken, and in the nature of the 
rhythmic sense. The constancy of that impulse pro- 
duced in Greek poetry in general the two rhythmical 
classes distinctly felt as the γένος toov and the γένος 
διπλάσιον. The other impulse was to carry the equaliz- 
ing process through the entire kolon by making the feet 

themselves equal. That is, of course, only another mani- 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 241 


festation of the same tendency that produced the former 
impuise. Both result from the inclination to arrange 
our rapid muscular movements, and the sounds which 
they produce, in groups of equal duration, or in groups 
whose relative durations exhibit very simple ratios. But 
one impulse deals with the smallest rhythmical unit, the 
syllable, and arranges successive syllables in the familiar 
grouping, the feet. The other deals with the larger and 
more complex unit, the foot, the product of the first im- 
pulse, which is the primary and the stronger impulse of 
the two. The impulse to equalize feet of different γένη 
is secondary. ‘The process is not so easy, because it 
involves some violence to the primary impulse; equali- 
zation is not so imperatively demanded; the habit of 
shifting at brief intervals from one yévos to another is 
constantly exercised in daily speech. Accordingly in a 
line like εὕδουσιν δ᾽ ὀρέων κορυφαί τε καὶ φάραγγες we 
may suppose the movement to have been distinctly that 
of even time through the first three feet, then of triple 
time the rest of the way. The line may indeed have 
been conceived as consisting of two kola; three dactyls 
constituted a kolon in most forms of the dactylic verse. 
The accelerando of the latter part of the line produces a 
pleasing effect that has parallels in English verse. The 
conductor in such cases would simply mark the thesis, 
giving one down beat to each foot; that would be ample 
guidance for any chorus. In shorter lines like 


γουνοῦμαί σ᾽, ἐλαφηβόλε, 
ξανθὴ παῖ Διὸς, ἀγρίων 
δέσποιν᾽ ΓΆΑρτεμι θηρῶν, 


the effect must have been the same, though the acceler- 
ando and ritardando recur at briefer intervals. On the 


other hand, if a single dactyl occurred amid trochees (or 
16 





CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


a single anapest amid iambi) the general movement in 
triple time was so distinctly marked that the single foot 


would doubtless be so far shortened as to become clearly 
irrational. ‘That is essentially the same situation that is 
so frequent in iambic and trochaic verse, when a “ spon- 
dee” stands in one or more of the dipodies. In all such 
cases the arsis of the isolated foot, which was normally 
in other surroundings made equal to the thesis, was 
now made irrational; the iambic movement was retarded 
by a slight delay on one up-beat. Between these two 
extremes were the numerous cases that form, taken 
together, an unbroken and minutely graded sequence. 
Every grade can be illustrated from our fragments of 
the lyric poets, and a great variety of forms might 
appear in a single poem. 

This theory throws overboard the doctrine of equality 
between the feet. Yes; but no more completely than 
Aristoxenos does by his doctrine — unquestionably 
sound — of the irrational syllable. And we may add, 
no more completely than does modern music when 
simple words of emotional character are sung with 
expression. An irrational trochee was longer than the 
pure trochee beside it, — just as much longer as a dactyl 
among trochees,and no moreso. The irrational syllable 
was not exactly measured by the χρόνος πρῶτος, which is, 
nevertheless, properly called the measure of the rhythm 
in general. ‘The doctrine of the χρόνοι τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας 
ἴδιοι must also be remembered as part of the system of 
Aristoxenos. And yet this does not mean the reintro- 
duction of chaos into metric. Limits were strictly drawn 
beyond which poet or singer could not go and did not 
desire to go —as distinctly as with the modern poet and 
modern singer. In such mixed kola unity was main- 
tained by equality between theses; arses might vary 


COMPOUND AND MIXED METERS 243 


between the limits fixed for irrational syllables, that is, 
between the length of a thesis and that of half a thesis. 
If more than one foot of the dactylic class was admitted, 
they were grouped together ; a prolonged thesis, or pove- 
χρονον, might stand between them, but no true foot of 
the iambic class. ‘There is also a strong tendency, though 
it is by no means a fixed rule, to place the feet of even 
time at the beginning of the kolon and make the close 
in triple time. In the second glyconic the noticeable 
preference for a spondee in the first place is a manifesta- 
tion of the same natural rhythmic feeling. In such ways 
the sense for rhythmic law controlled the poet and musi- 
cian, and should control the modern student. Indeed, 
in all the arts that deal with time or with space mathe- 
matical relations are the framework ; the flesh that clothes 
and gives life to the skeleton, making the whole a work 
of art instead of a mechanism, must in doing this round 
out the surface and lend grace to the hard mathematical 
lines. Without the rigid framework to determine the 
essential character and fix the significant relations, the 
whole would be unmeaning, a formless confusion ; 
though any skeleton performs its function best when 
well covered. To take another illustration, already used 
above (which of course must not be pressed too far), 
the rhythmic effect of such departure, strictly limited, 
from exact ratios between arsis and thesis may be 
compared to the harmonic effect of discords in music, 
which are at once resolved, and lend expressiveness and 
force as nothing else could. None of these departures 
went farther than modern tempo rubato. 

One source of difficulty in melic meters must always 
remain, in lack of the music. Though the musician did 
not do violence to natural quantities — that is, did not 
so rhythmize as to shorten or prolong individual sylla- 





244 CHAPTERS ON GREEK METRIC 


bles much beyond the limits allowed in speaking — yet 
he might, and sometimes did, adopt for a particular 
series such a combination of the syllabic times as would 
not have suggested itself to a reader. In such cases the 


composer indicated the times in his notes. The Seikilos 
inscription (C. Jan, Musici Seriptores, p. 452, or Suppl. 


p. 38 f.) is an example of such rhythmization ; no modern 
reader certainly, and probably no ancient reader, could, 
without the notes, have discovered the rhythm there 
adopted. How far the lyric and dramatic poets availed 
themselves of this freedom we have no means of know- 
ing, and no papyri or inscriptions are likely ever to an- 
swer the question fully. No student of metric should 
leave this uncertainty out of view. The foregoing inter- 
pretations are offered with distinct recognition of this 
uncertain element, but with the conviction that at pres- 
ent we have no sufficient ground for believing that that 
element was after all very large in the meters we have 
been considering. 


INDEX. 





INDEX. 


Nots. — Full-faced figures indicate that the original is quoted. 


ADONIC, 223, 226. 

Aischylos, parodos of Ag., 204f.; 
Eum. 516-519, 195; Eum. 553 f., 
210; Pers. 66-116, 166. 

Alcaic, 220. 

Alkman, 190, 234 f., 237 ff. 

᾿Αλογία (see also /rrational), defined 
by Aristoxenos, 109f., West- 
phal’s view, 111 f.; in English 
verse, 112f.; associated with the- 
ory of various longs, 9; but not 
by Aristoxenos, 11f.; not in 
thesis, 173 f. 

Ambiguous meters, 39 f. 

Amphibrach, 222. 

Anakreon, 231. 

Antispast, 219, 221 f. 

Archilochos, 58 ; combined two γένη 
in one περίοδος, 199. 

Aristides Quintilianus, on quantity 
of consonants, 8 ; on συμπλέκοντες 
ete., 9; characterized, 10f., 191; 
on order of topics in metric, 15; 
on elegiac pentameter, 31; on 
μέσα μέτρα, 39f.; on ῥυθμός and 
πλάσμα, 51; cites rhythm of 
pulse, 65; notes behavior of voice 
in reading poetry, 129; on extent 
of kola, 145; on σημεῖα ποδικά, 
146 f.; on irrational feet, 151; 
defines foot, 154; on στρογγύλοι 
and περίπλεῳ, 176 ff.; on περί- 
οδος, 191 f.; on effect of frequent 
change of γένος, 203; on σύνθετοι 
ῥυθμοί, 213 ff.; counts “ times” 
on ὁ metrical”’ basis, 216; differ- 
ences between him and Aristoxe- 
nos, 213f.; between him and 
Hephaistion, 221; on ethos of 
rhythms, 217. 





Aristophanes, Clouds 649 ff., 185, 
188, 18 ἢ, 

Aristotle, refers to μετρικοί for doc- 
trine of sounds and _ syllables, 
16f.; counts rhythm and imi- 
tation equally κατὰ φύσιν, 65; 
on rhythm of prose, 90. 

Aristoxenos, founder of rhythmical 
school, 11 ; made metric a branch 
of rhythmic, 14; his Elements of 
Rhythm extant in fragments, 15; 
made χρόνος πρῶτος instead of 
syllable the unit in rhythm, 15, 
25; took from earlier authorities 
his description of sounds, 16; put 
traditional metric in new light, 
18; pupil of Aristotle, 25; why 
his system was not universally 
adopted, 25-27 ; on the foot, 37; 
our safest guide on rhythm, 54, 
57; defines rhythm, 58; cited 
rhythms from nature and from 
human life, 66; on process of 
rhythmization, 101 ff.; on χρόνοι 
ποδικοί and ῥυθμοποιία, 104-109; 
an ἀλογία, 110; on motion and 
rest in rhythm, 116; on moye- 
ment of voice in speaking and in 
singing, 121 f.; notes effect of 
emotion on speech-tune, 129; his 
definition of foot, 181 f.; allows 
no two-timed foot, 135 ; on σημεῖα 
ποδικά, 1388 ff.; on means of di- 
viding time in rhythm, 147; on 
arsis and thesis, 150; irrational 
syllable always in arsis, 173 f.; 
his statement that a long has 
twice the length of a short, 
207 f.; on λόγος τριπλάσιος and 
λόγος ἐπίτριτος, 209 f. 





248 INDEX. 


Arnold, M., 164 note. 

Arsis and thesis, 150; importance 
of, 151 f. 

Ars Palaemonis, on metrum and 
rhythmus, 52 f. 

Asclepiadean, 220, 227 ff. 

Atilius Fortunatianus, on rhythmus 
and metrum, 44; on the priapean 
and glyconic, 280 f. 


BACCHYLIDES PAPYRUS, 195. 

Bach, J. S., 206. 

Barnby, J., 80. 

“ Bean porridge hot,” 73 ff. 

Bennett, C. E., 32, 156 ff. 

Blass, F., his theory of enhoplii, 
184 ff. 

Baccheios, on ῥυθμός and μέτρον, 
42: on the ἐνόπλιος, 186. 

Browning, R., 91, 211. 

Biicher, K., Arbeit u. Rhythmus, 


67-72. 


CAESAR, J., 15, 181, 191 note. 

Caesius Bassus, 164 f. 

Catalexis, modern illustrations, 22 f. 

Catullus, 164, 166 note, 228. 

Change of yévos within a strophe, 
204 and note. 

Choriambic, 223. 

Christ, W., 3, 36, 155 f., 192 note. 

χρόνοι ποδικοί, 104 ff., 134 ff. 

χρόνοι τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι, 104 Τῇ, 
153. 

Consonants, their quantity, 8 f., 13, 
87. 

Counting-out rimes, 73. 

“Cyclic” anapests and dactyls, 
168-183. 


DAcTYLO-EPITRITIC verse, 184 ff. ; 
name, 212. 

Dactyls, lyric, 190. 

Darwin, C., 128 f. 

Diomedes, on dividing the penta- 
meter, 38. 

Dionysios of Halikarnassos, on va- 





rious longs and shorts, 7f.; his 
metrical analysis of clauses from 
Thukydides, 41 f.; lists of feet 
show Aristoxenean influence, 43 ; 
contrasts prose and ῥυθμός, 51; 
on rhythm, ete., in oratory, 126; 
on melody of speech and of song, 
127; distinguishes efpy@uos and 
ἔρρυθμος, 127; 130, 168; on “ cy- 
clic” feet, 168 ff.; on περίοδος, 
194. 

Dipodic grouping, 145, 161. 

Dochmiac, 219, 222 f. 

δωδεκάσημοι περίοδοι, 190 f., 213,216. 


Emerson, R. W., 211. 

English verse, described differently 
by people who agree in their 
reading, 25; misunderstood, acc. 
to Tennyson, 25 note; Lanier’s 
“Science of,” 83 note; Goodell’s 
“ Quantity in,” 83 note; in what 
sense based on word-accent, 95 f. ; 
irrational syllables in, 112f.; its 
rhythm not yet adequately ex- 
amined, 134; ambiguities in 
rhythm, 160; admits conflict 
between stressed accent and 
verse ictus, 163 f.; why its rhythm 
is not recognized, 182 f. 

Enhoplii, Blass’s doctrine of, 184 ff. 

Epichoriambic, 223. 

Equality between feet, 242. 

“Eurhythmy,” 202. 

Excerpta Neapol. on ῥυθμός, 48. 


Foor, more than one syllable ne- 
cessary for, 37; feet in ratio 1:3 
and 3:4, 209 ff. 

Guiepitsen, H., 3, 125 

Glyconic, 212, 215, 219, 221, 

Goethe’s Heidenroslein, in Schu- 
bert’s music, 22; in Reichardt’s, 
23. 

Goodell, T. D., 83 note. 

Gramophone records, 75, 87, 88. 


INDEX. 249 


Henprickson, G. L., 32, 159 ff. 

Hephaistion, does not treat of the 
letters, 16; on elegiac pentame- 
ter, 30; assumes different γένη 
in one περίοδος, 200; on anti- 
spastic meters, 219 ff. ; on other 
related meters, 223f.; his prin- 
ciple of analysis, 223; on Aoya- 
οιδικά, 282f.; on dactyls among 
trochees, 235 f. 

Holmes, O. W., 94. 

Horace, 165, 199. 


Ictus, 156 ff. 
Irrational feet, 150f. (See ᾿Αλογία.) 


Jan, C. v., 43. 


KawezynskI, M., 15, 53, 156. 
Keats, J., 164 note. 
Kola, their extent, 144 ff. 


La Faroe, J., 29 note. 

Lanier, S., 83 note. 

Letters, description of sounds of as 
part of metric, 15 ff. 

Lindsay, W. M., 167 note. 

Liszt, F., 133. 

Logacedic meters, 212-244. 

Longinos, makes all longs equal, 
all shorts equal, 16; on ῥυθμός 
and μέτρον, 44; cites rhythms 
from animal and human life, 65. 

Lowell, J. R., on composition of 
“ Commemoration Ode,” 94, 


Mativs THeoporvs, on “ metra ” 
and ‘“‘rhythmi,” 45. 


Marius Victorinus, on metrici and 


musici, 6f.; follows traditional 
order of topics, 16; on elegiac 
pentameter, 30f.; his way of 
naming feet and of counting 
times, 41; on rhythmus and met- 
rum, 44, 46, 48, 49 f.; on σημεῖον, 
149; defines foot, 154: on heroic 
and dactylic verse, 185f., 189 ff. ; 





on περίοδος dwdexdonuos, 190ff., 
218; on glyconic etc., 225 f., 227 
ff.; on λογαοιδικά, 238 f. 

Mason, Wm., 133. 

Masqueray, P., 212, 215, 218. 

Mathematician, unconscious auto- 
matic, 29, 76. 

Metrici, our proper attitude toward, 
27 ff. 42, 53 ff., 224, 

μέτρον, earlier name for foot, 132. 

“ Metrum ” in contrast with “ rhyth- 
mus,” 42-53. 

Middle spondee, in pentameter, 
32-42. 

Modulatio, see πλάσμα. 

μονόχρονον, 136, 194, 195. 

Musician, ancient, needed no de- 
tailed theory of rhythm, 20f.; 
modern, analyzes and writes 
rhythm of verse, 81. 


OXYRHYNCHOS papyrus, 108 note, 
136f. 187, 194f., 210. 


ParKER, H. W.., 204 note, 208 note. 

Parcemiac, 152 f. 

Pentameter, elegiac, name old, 15, 
32 ; name natural, 37 f. ; described 
by Hephaistion, 80; described 
by Marius Vict., 30f., 35 δι 
by Aristides Q., 81; by Teren- 
tianus Maur., 35; by Augustine, 
86; acc. to Quintilian, 32ff.; 
strange scanning, 35, 38; perhaps 
read, later, with true middle 
spondee, 39-42. 

περίοδος, two senses, 191 ff.; con- 
taining kola of different γένη, 199 
ff.; 213. 

περίπλεῳ, 176 ff. 

φαλαίκειον, 219. 

Pherecratic, 219, 225 ff. 

Pindar, Nem. IX 1, 185. 

Tlidapixdy, 200 f. 

πλάσμα, 50, 51, 77, 79, 81f., 129. 

Plato, refers to μετρικοί for doctrine 
of sounds and syllables, 17; on 





250 INDEX. 


rhythm, 65; on ἐνόπλιος, 185, 
189. 

Πλατωνικόν, 200. 

Priapean, 220, 227 ff. 

Probus, 51. 

Prose, its rhythm, 89f.; why later 
than poetry, 92; and verse, 115 ff. 

Psychological Laboratory, Yale, 63 
note, 85 note. 


“Quantity in Eng. verse,” 83 note. 

Quintilian, on elegiac pentame- 
ter, 32ff.; on “rhythmi” and 
“metra,” 49. 


Rarp, J. J., 133. 

Reinach, T., 212. 

Rhythm, definitions, 58 f.; how re- 
lated to symmetry, 59 ff. ; need of 
repetition in, 60; τάξις essential, 
61 f.; rhythm in nature, 62 | 
inborn in all men, 64; remarks 
thereon by Aristotle, Plato, Aris- 
tides Q., Longinos, 65; various 
examples, 65 f.; Biicher’s study 
of rhythm in work, 67-72; rela- 
tion of words to rhythm in work- 
song, 69-72; rhythm in children’s 
play, 72-76; of modern verse 
analyzed and written by musi- 
cians, 99 f., 81; of nursery rimes, 

81; of Eng. poetry in general, 
82-86; in Eng. speech, 86-96 ; 
in Greek, 96-98, and chap. iy; 
practice requisite for analysis of, 
84-86; mechanical analysis of, 
84 f.; relation to pitch ratios, 84 ; 
Scripture’s experiments, 85 note ; 
of prose, 89f.; proper starting- 
point for study of, 92 f. ; artistic 
production of, 93-96 ; production 
of in Greek, 98; how far based 
on word-accent in English, 96; 
rest and motion in, 116-120, 124; 
in oratory, 126 ; dochmiac, 132 ff. 

Rhythmization, a shaping process, 
100 ff. 





Rhythmizing impulse, 21; how it 
deals with English, 86 ff.; how it 
dealt with Greek, 96ff.; how 
it dealt with mixed kola, 240 ff. 

Rhythmizomenon, siguificance of, 
100 f. 

Rhythmopoiia, 104-109. 

“Rhythmus” in contrast with 
“ metrum,” 42-53. 

Ribot, T., 94. 

Rossbach, A., 3, 190 note, 195, 199, 
200, 201, 203 note, 236. 

Rossini, G., 204 note. 


SAPPHIC, nine-syllabled, 219; 
eleven-syllabled, 223, 228. 

Schmidt, J. H., 195, 203. 

Scholia, to Hephaiston, on metrici 
and rhythmici, 6; on ἐνόπλιος, 
185, I88f.; on mepiodos, 193; on 
division of the hexameter, 198. 

Scholia to Pindar, on προσοδιακά, 
184, 196, 199. 

Schroeder, O., 196 and note. 

Schubert, F., 22. 

Schultz, G., 15, 32 ff., 156. 

“Science of Eng. Verse,” S 


9 
5 


ier’s, 83 note. 

Scripture, E. W., 85 note, 8 

Seikilos epitaph, 149, 244. 

σημασία, 135, 156 ff. 

σημεῖον, σημεῖα, 104 f., 134, 138 ff. 

Shelley, P. B., 164 note. 

Song, Greek, employed other time- 
ratios than 2: 1, 19; modern, 
adopting rhythm of spoken words, 
21 ff.,76 ff.,78 f.,80; popular Hun- 
rarian, with shifting time, 133. 

Sophokles, QO. T. 483-512, 166; 
El. 130 ff., 190; Phil. 169-190, 
216 f.; his use of logacedic, 218. 

Speech-tune, 121 ff.; passes into 
true melody, 128. 

Stolz, F., 167 note. 

Stress, in English and German, 96; 
in ancient Greek, 97, 158 ff.; in 
ancient and modern theory, 155 


παν 
a 


INDEX. 


ff. ; element in Latin word-accent, 
162 ff. ; does not always coincide 
with ictus in English, 163, 166. 

στρογγύλος, 176 ff., 212. 

Suidas, 194, 

σύνθετοι πόδες, 210. 

Susemihl, F., 15. 

Sweet, H., 87. 

Syllables, natural starting-point for 
metrical theory, 21, 27 ff.; mark 
smallest rhythmic times noted, 
87f.; their elasticity, 100, 112; 
common, long, short, 113-115. 

Symmetry, how related to rhythm, 
59 ff. ; in rhythmical composition, 
202. 


Tennyson, A., on English meter, 
25 note, 96; 160; 164 note. 

Terentianus Maur., on elegiac pen- 
tameter, 35; 187, 190 note. 

Theory of rhythm, not needed by 
Greek reader or singer, 14; nor 
by poet, 20-25. 

Thrasymachos of Chalkedon, 194. 





Time, changing in modern music, 
133, 204 note. 

rovh, 80. 

Tralles inscription, 149, 244. 

Triseme, 136, 


VaRRO, definition of versus, 114. 

Verse and prose, 115 ff. 

Voice, in speaking and in singing, 
21, 29, 115 ff., 120 ff., 129. 


Wert, H., on movement of voice, 
124; on glyconic, 215 ff. 

Westphal, R., 3, 54, 194, 203; his 
doctrine criticised, 103, 111 f. 115, 
123-125, 140, 144 f., 155, 170ff., 
177 f., 205 ff. 

Word-accent, in Eng. rhythm, 71, 
75, 96, 163 f., 166; in Latin, con- 
tained stress as one element, 162 
f.; in Greek, disregarded in sing- 
ing, 168. 

Work-song, 68-72. 

ξυν(υγία, 194, 195, 210. 


ξύνθετοι, see σύνθετοι and Aristides. 











“ 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 


| 
1 
RE 


1010681710 





COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 


This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, 
as provided by the rules of the Library or by special ar- 
rangement with the Librarian in charge. 





DATE BORROWED | DATE DUE DATE BORROWED | DATE DUE 


WAT | 


ἱ 
| 
| 
" 
Ϊ 





may δ 1949 








“ἃ δι δελλιεϑιν meme ᾽ς 


C28°638)MS50 











